Fraud encompasses far more than the high-profile, large-scale schemes that draw public attention. It also includes everyday offenses — deceiving acquaintances for money or repeatedly dining and dashing — making it one of the most pervasive crimes in daily life.
Calls to toughen criminal penalties for fraud have been raised repeatedly, but legal experts warn that simply raising sentences based on the scale of financial damage will not be enough to bring down recidivism rates. They argue that stricter punishment for repeat offenses and stronger restitution procedures must be paired with better oversight of habitual fraudsters and improved public information systems to prevent further crimes.
Back to fraud right after release — cheated lover, acquaintances out of 160 million won
A man in his 30s, identified only as A, had already been convicted of fraud five times when he reoffended just four months after his release from prison. He told his girlfriend he needed money for living expenses and urgent cash, and deceived another acquaintance by promising to help secure a loan. At the time, A was already standing trial for a separate fraud case — and investigators found he had targeted the three new victims to cover repayments owed to earlier ones.
The Gimcheon Branch of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, led by chief prosecutor Han Ju-dong of its Criminal Division 2, indicted A on fraud charges on June 24 after obtaining a detention warrant. A is accused of borrowing 102.47 million won ($69,200) and 16.27 million won, respectively, from two women in their 20s with whom he had been in romantic relationships between February 2024 and March last year, and failing to repay either. He also faces charges of defrauding a man in his 30s who was seeking a loan — telling him to pay 44.39 million won in "processing fees" in exchange for help securing financing.
Prosecutors received the cases from police and in June obtained warrants for A's arrest and communications records, which they executed directly. After arresting and questioning him, they applied for a detention warrant, which the court granted.
According to prosecutors, A had already been indicted in a separate fraud case and was undergoing a first-instance trial at the time of the offenses, and was within the recidivism period following his release. After conducting their own supplementary investigation — including interviewing victims and tracing how the money was spent — prosecutors confirmed that A had defrauded the three victims to fund cryptocurrency investments and to cover repayments owed to victims of his earlier fraud cases.
Convicted fraudster turns to extortion — 13 victims in all
A man in his 20s, identified only as B, who had previously received a prison sentence for fraud, approached people he met on chat applications under the pretense of lending them money or giving them an allowance, then collected various fees from them. He also posed as a minor to draw victims into sexual conversations, then used the chat logs to extort money from them. In total, 13 people fell victim to his schemes, with combined losses of around 67 million won.
The Tongyeong Branch of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office, led by chief prosecutor Lim Hong-seok of its Criminal Division 2, indicted B on extortion and fraud charges on June 25 after obtaining a detention warrant. B is accused of posing as an underage woman on chat applications and luring three people into sexual conversations between July and November last year, then threatening to file complaints based on those exchanges to extort a combined total of about 9.84 million won. He also faces fraud charges for deceiving 10 victims he met on chat applications between November last year and April this year — posing as someone who would give them an allowance, then demanding upfront fees and pocketing 57.64 million won.
Police referred the extortion and fraud cases to prosecutors in eight separate filings between January and last month. Prosecutors consolidated the cases and conducted their own supplementary investigation, analyzing B's bank account records and past court documents. After confirming that B had previously fled while failing to appear for trial and had continued offending even while not in custody, prosecutors applied for a detention warrant last month, which the court granted. The prosecutor handling the case actively argued at the detention hearing that B posed a high risk of reoffending.
'Toughen sentencing guidelines — and consider disclosing habitual fraudsters' identities'
Legal experts point to lenient sentencing guidelines as a key driver of repeat offenses like those in these cases. Under the Supreme Court's sentencing guidelines, general fraud involving losses of under 100 million won — as in B's case — carries a baseline sentence of six months to one and a half years in prison. Even when aggravating factors apply, such as a particularly harmful method or a prior conviction for the same type of offense, the maximum under the guidelines is two and a half years. The guidelines are not strictly binding, but judges who depart from them must explain their reasoning in the written ruling, meaning they cannot deviate without a justifiable basis.
A sitting prosecutor said that even when the financial damage is not large, the stolen money could represent a victim's entire savings, and that fraudsters who receive light sentences are likely to reoffend after serving their time because they see it as a profitable trade. "Repeat offenses must be met with harsher punishment," the prosecutor said. Attorney Kim Han-gyu of law firm Gonggan <style ref="s6">said it is rare for a fraud conviction involving around 100 million won to result in a sentence of more than one year in prison. "There are victims who suffer severe psychological anguish — and even take their own lives — over a few million or tens of millions of won lost to someone they trusted," he said.
If you're thinking about self-harm or suicide, contact the Ministry of Health and Welfare's helpline 1393, available 24/7. Please request a translator for English-language services.</style>
These cases also share another common thread: fraud does not end with a single punishment. The pattern of creating new victims to repay old ones — a kind of financial shell game — repeats itself, and additional offenses committed while a suspect is already on trial are far from rare. Experts say this points to a fundamental gap in how habitual fraudsters are monitored and deterred from reoffending.
Attorney Lee Sang-min of Helpme Law Office said one option worth considering would be disclosing the identities of offenders — within defined limits — when they commit certain crimes above a set financial threshold or are classified as habitual criminals. Attorney Kim also said that many people are deceived even while a suspect is on trial or in custody. "For fraudsters with a long record of the same type of offense and a clear risk of striking again, we should consider disclosing their identities to prevent more victims," he said.
yg@heraldcorp.com
