A man in his 60s who received probation in the first trial for 'fraud charges'... 2nd trial ‘not guilty’ overturned

A woman in her 60s who was indicted on charges of signing a lease contract while hiding the fact that a hospital with the same medical specialty could not be located in a commercial building was found not guilty in the appeals court.

On the 8th, the 2-1st Criminal Division of the Seoul Western District Court (Chief Judge Lee Joo-hyeon) overturned the first trial ruling that sentenced Mr.

Mr. A is a doctor and a commercial owner. In 2018, he signed a contract with Mr. B, a dentist, to rent a room in the building and received 50 million won as a deposit.

However, the ‘same industry restriction agreement’ held back Mr. B. At the time, another dental hospital was already located in the building, and a doctor at that hospital filed a lawsuit requesting a temporary injunction to prohibit business from operating, demanding that Mr. B stop opening the practice.

Accordingly, Mr. B sued Mr. A on charges of fraud. Even though they knew that hospitals in the same medical department could not be located in the same building, they signed a lease agreement while hiding this fact. Mr. B also claimed that although he expressed concern to Mr. A at the time of signing the contract, saying, “There is a dental clinic on a different floor, is it okay for me to go in again?”, Mr. A responded, “It is possible.”

Mr. A completely denied the charges. About 20 years ago, the room in question was jointly sold with another partner, promising to establish a hospital, but the partner at the time managed the sales contract and failed to properly confirm the related agreements.

The first trial court found Mr. A guilty of the charges and sentenced him to six months in prison and two years of probation. The court explained, "It is difficult to accept the fact that only Mr. A did not know such an important matter, referring to the fact that in the past, the two people were assigned designated medical departments to avoid overlapping industries."

However, the judgment of the appellate court was different. It was difficult to say that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A intentionally deceived the victim.

The court explained, "It is acknowledged that the partner who had a major conflict with the defendant while operating the hospital did not return the sales contract after the actual termination of the partnership. There is a possibility that the defendant did not see the sales contract for the room in this case and was not aware of the restrictions on the business."

He also said, "Drugstores and other hospitals located in the building have also had conflicts over business-related restrictions, and since the court has ruled that business-related restrictions are not recognized each time, it is highly likely that the defendant was also unaware of these details."

Attorney Oh Gyeong-rok of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A, said, "The core issue of establishing a fraud case depends on 'proving intent.'" He added, "The defendant had no opportunity to look again at the sales contract after signing it 20 years ago, and at the time, the text regarding business restrictions was written in very small letters, so he was completely unaware of the related content."

He added, “The court also appears to have taken into account the fact that there was no objective evidence that the defendant knew about the industry restrictions, overturned the original decision and found him not guilty.”

[View full article] - A man in his 60s who received probation in the first trial for 'fraud charges'... 2nd trial ‘not guilty’ overturned (link)