[Editor’s Note] While court rulings contain the conclusions of a case, the process leading up to those conclusions is often obscured by legal jargon.

[The Reason Behind That Day] reconstructs the case chronologically based on the facts recorded in the court’s ruling. It traces the process by which a case unfolded, what transpired along the way, and how the court determined liability and outcomes.

This is not an attempt to understand or defend anyone. Rather, it aims to examine, together with readers, the questions the case raises for our society through the records preserved in the court ruling.

[E-Daily Reporter Choi Jeong-hee ] December 2025, Seoul Southern District Court.

Mr. Kim, appearing at the appellate hearing, presented arguments entirely different from those he had made in the first trial. Mr. Kim, who had been indicted on charges of acting as a member of a stock tip-sharing group in Cambodia and had admitted to the charges in the first trial, claimed that he had never intended to deceive investors and that his role was simply to answer phone calls.

Not a “Customer Service Center,” but a “Call Center”

Mr. Kim stated that he did not perform the customer service duties he had admitted to in the first trial.

He argued that there were separate “customer service centers” and “call centers,” and that he was stationed at the “call center.” He explained that the customer service center handled calls from victims demanding the return of their investment funds and persuaded them that they would need to pay additional taxes or fees to retrieve their money, whereas the call center was simply a place to answer calls or make courtesy calls to investors.

He claimed that others were responsible for extracting additional money from investors.

Mr. Kim also stated that he had impersonated a “manager” only twice.

The appellate court (Case No. 2025-No. 1517) did not accept this argument. This was because Mr. Kim had previously admitted to the crime during the first trial. Although he had received assistance from a private defense attorney at the time and had ample opportunity to explain his position, he suddenly changed his story during the appeal.

Mr. Kim’s claim that there were separate customer service and call centers contradicted the statements of other members of the organization. Other accomplices—including a Korean woman who had worked at the Mango Danji customer service center before Mr. Kim—did not testify that the roles of the two organizations were separate.

The court ruled that even if Mr. Kim had only handled phone calls and made courtesy calls, as he claimed, he was still complicit in the crime. This is because the very act of leading victims to believe that the female manager they were chatting with online actually existed was itself part of the fraud scheme.

Ms. Kim argued that there were multiple fraud teams within Mango Danji and that she had not participated in the crimes of all of them. In fact, the organization was divided into teams impersonating different investment companies and managers, as well as teams targeting Taiwanese victims.

These teams took orders from a person referred to as the “general director” and worked in a single large office without any partitioned spaces. Ms. Kim was the only Korean woman there.

Ms. Kim claimed that she was eventually confined and assaulted by Chinese members of the organization, forcing her to participate in the crimes. However, her movements, as verified by the court, contradicted her account.

Ms. Kim was able to smoke outside the office during her breaks and freely used her cell phone after work. Women working at the call center could also leave the Mango Complex relatively easily. No one came forward who had personally witnessed Ms. Kim being confined or assaulted.

Back to Cambodia Again

An unexpected fact also came to light during the trial.

Ms. Kim, who had returned to Korea on May 13, 2024, traveled to Cambodia on June 23—a mere 41 days later. She stated that she went there to meet someone serving as an interpreter for another stock-trading chat room.

The court found it difficult to accept the claim that Mr. Kim—who alleged he had been confined and assaulted, leaving him no choice but to participate in the crime—had traveled to Cambodia to meet with another individual associated with a stock tip group.

The appellate court largely rejected Mr. Kim’s claims.

However, for some reason, the sentence was reduced from five years to four years in prison.

What the appellate court focused on was not the fact that Mr. Kim had recanted his confession, but rather the timing of his involvement in the crime. The court recognized that Mr. Kim’s involvement in the “Mango Danji” group spanned from March 30, 2024, to May 12, 2024. However, a significant number of the victims transferred money after that period.

Should Mr. Kim, who had returned to South Korea, be held responsible for all the crimes committed by the organization? The key issue was determining the extent to which Mr. Kim’s guilt should be held.

The court held that the date on which Kim began deceiving the victims was more important than the dates on which the victims actually transferred the money. The court reasoned that if the deception began while Kim was still a member of the organization, then Kim should be held responsible even if the victims’ money was deposited after he had left the organization.

Conversely, the court held that Mr. Kim could not be held liable if the fraudulent acts began after he left the organization.

In the appellate trial, the prosecution expanded the charges to include 62 victims and approximately 8.4 billion won in damages. However, the court recognized 42 victims and 6.5 billion won in damages related to the “reading room” organization. Of these, Mr. Kim was separately found guilty of fraud against 15 victims, amounting to approximately 3 billion won.
For example, the losses suffered by Mr. Lee—who was deceived starting on April 28, spoke with Mr. Kim twice, and sent 50 million won on June 4—were recognized as Mr. Kim’s responsibility.

However, Mr. Kim was found not guilty of fraud regarding 16 victims for whom the deception began either after he had left or at an unknown time.

The fact that some victims were acquitted was reflected in Mr. Kim’s sentence.

A “Fake Exchange” Where No Stocks Were Ever Traded

However, there was one additional ruling in the appellate trial that worked in Mr. Kim’s favor.

It concerned the operation of a fake stock trading website. According to the Capital Markets Act, it is illegal to establish or operate a financial investment product market—where stocks, other securities, or exchange-traded derivatives are bought and sold—without a license from the Financial Services Commission; violations are subject to criminal penalties.

The appellate court ruled that since the site they operated was “fake” and no stocks or other securities were actually traded through it, they had not violated the Capital Markets Act. Consequently, the court also found him “not guilty” on this charge.

Both Mr. Kim and the prosecution filed appeals.

On April 30, 2026, the Supreme Court (Case No. 2026Do459) overturned the appellate court’s acquittal on the charge of violating the Capital Markets Act and remanded the case. While the Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellate court had narrowed the scope of Mr. Kim’s criminal conduct, it stated that the appellate court’s acquittal regarding the Capital Markets Act was erroneous.

The Supreme Court ruled that even if no actual stock trading took place, a market could still qualify as a “financial investment product market” under the Capital Markets Act if it possessed the outward appearance that would lead a general investor to perceive it as a normal trading market. It held that a not-guilty verdict should not be based solely on the absence of actual trading. The court’s intent was to order a reexamination, noting that there was room to argue the website operated by the organization possessed such an appearance. Since the guilty verdict was also overturned, the four-year prison sentence has not yet been finalized.

It is possible that Mr. Kim’s role in this massive fraud scheme was limited to simply making and receiving phone calls. However, what the court focused on was the confidence those calls instilled in investors: the belief that the female manager they were chatting with online actually existed—a belief fostered by Mr. Kim’s voice.

A monthly salary of 10 million won and a short period of one and a half months resulted in prison sentences of five years and four years, respectively, in the first and second trials. Mr. Kim’s final sentence will be determined again by the Seoul Southern District Court.

Previous installment: “Just Answer the Phone and Earn 10 Million Won a Month”… The Secrets of Mango Complex ① [The Reason That Day]