A suspect in a fraud case who used artificial intelligence (AI) to fabricate evidence and even put the complainant on trial for false accusation was caught through the prosecution's supplementary investigation.
The Daegu District Prosecutors' Office trial division (Director General Prosecutor Kim Do-hyung) said on the 16th that it detained and indicted a person identified as A on charges including fraud by using a computer, perjury, and obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means. A is accused of securing a non-indictment decision in a fraud complaint case through evidence fabrication and then causing the complainant to be indicted for false accusation.
The case traces back to 2024. In January and August, A used victim B's personal information to make it look like B applied for loans at financial institutions and took out a total of 19 million won. B filed a fraud complaint against A in September of the same year.
A manipulated a KakaoTalk chat with AI to make it seem as if B had borrowed cash and repaid it the same day, and submitted it to police. Police asked B to submit a mobile phone, but A had already secretly taken the phone and deleted the KakaoTalk chat room. Police issued a no-suspicion disposition for A.
A then filed a false-accusation complaint against B, and B ultimately went to trial. A appeared as a witness and, regarding the source of the 19 million won, gave false testimony to the effect that it was "money lent to B and repaid." In particular, A repeatedly submitted petitions to the court urging a heavy sentence for B and even demanded a settlement payment from B.
What turned the case around was a trial prosecutor with the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office who was handling the false-accusation case. After hearing B's plea that the KakaoTalk chat history was fabricated and conducting a forensic examination of the mobile phone, the prosecutor confirmed actual forgery. On the 2nd, the prosecution dismissed the indictment in the false-accusation case, and the next day detained A on charges including perjury.
Prosecutors cited supplementary investigation as the reason they were able to correct this case, in which the victim and the perpetrator nearly switched places.
The prosecution said, "If a prosecutor's supplementary investigation is not possible going forward, even if such circumstances are identified at the trial stage, prosecutors would have to request supplementary investigation from police or refer the case for investigation," adding, "This could make it difficult to ascertain the substantive truth in a timely manner."