Will the part-time worker and bodyguard who played the role of Jeon Cheong-jo’s fraud ‘Wind Catcher’ also be punished?

It was revealed that Jeon Cheong-jo (27), the remarriage partner of fencer Nam Hyeon-hee (42), actively used part-time workers and bodyguards as ‘wind catchers’ and created a plausible atmosphere to deceive fraud victims. In the legal world, there is an opinion that although part-time workers and bodyguards only performed simple tasks in exchange for money, if they were aware of the intention to defraud or were able to predict the damage, they could be punished as accomplices.

According to the police on the 30th, the Songpa Police Station in Seoul plans to summon and interrogate Mr. Jeon after finding out the details of the cases related to him through an investigation of the complainant. Songpa Police Station is investigating the attempted fraud complaint filed at Gangseo Police Station on the 28th.

In the process of approaching Mr. Nam, it was revealed that Mr. Jeon planned the fraud in detail, such as by hiring part-time workers to act as substitutes and showing off that he was a ‘third generation chaebol’. On the 24th, an article was posted on an online community with the title, ‘I am reporting evidence of Nam Hyun-hee and Jeon Cheong-jo’s third-generation conglomerate’s fraudulent marriage fraud’, and that she received a script from an agency and pretended to be a reporter to conduct an interview with Jeon. The author, who said he often worked as a part-time agent, claimed that at the time, four people, including Mr. Nam and Mr. Jeon, were eating at a luxury restaurant, and that he asked Mr. Jeon questions about his assets. He said, “When I read the script and the atmosphere on set, I felt uneasy because I thought they were trying to scam someone.”

It is believed that Jeon also hired a part-time worker to act as a ‘fake mother’. In an interview with Channel A on the 27th, Nam said, “(Mr. Jeon) called her mother and asked, ‘Where were you born?’ and the person on the other end of the phone answered, ‘New York.’” As she could not believe that Mr. Nam was her third generation chaebol, she said, as Jeon cried, she asked the person on the other end of the phone, “‘Mom, who is my real dad?’” and the person on the other end of the line said the name Jeon OO. However, Jeon was not actually the extramarital child of the head of a large corporation, and her birthplace was known to be Ganghwa-gun, Incheon, not New York.

She is also suspected of being accomplices of the bodyguards accompanying Jeon. On the 28th, Kim Min-seok, a member of the Gangseo-gu district in Seoul, submitted a petition to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency requesting that six people, including Jeon’s bodyguards and굿모닝토토 도메인 Nam Hyeon-hee, be investigated for fraud and attempted fraud. According to multiple victims, Mr. Jeon encouraged the victims to deposit money into the security guards’ accounts. It is pointed out that if the security guards lent the account even after knowing the fact, they could be considered accomplices to fraud and attempted fraud.

The legal community pointed out that the possibility of both part-time workers and bodyguards being punished as accomplices to fraud depending on the situation cannot be ruled out. In order to constitute a crime of aiding and abetting fraud, there must be at least some level of awareness of the fraudulent act, and it is highly likely that those acting as fake parents and reporters were aware to some extent that Jeon was trying to gain financial gain by lying about his identity.

If you look at actual court precedents, there are cases where people were punished for working as a voice phishing scheme after getting a job thinking it was a high-paying part-time job. Here, the court used as the main basis for judgment whether or not the part-time worker’s negligence was proven (acting despite knowing the possibility that a specific act could lead to a crime). Attorney Bang Min-woo of Hanil Law Firm said, “We believe that the crime of aiding and abetting is established because the personnel acting as agents participated without even being vaguely aware of the details of Mr. Jeon’s fraud.” Lee Jeong-do, a lawyer at the law firm Chambon, also explained, “If the security guards lent the account thinking it would be okay to use it to commit a crime, that in itself can be seen as an intentional act of aiding and abetting.”

A police official investigating the case said, “We plan to broadly look at people who are related to Mr. Jeon.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *