CONTENTS
- 1. Facts Charged Against the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client

- 2. The Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client Denies the Facts Charged

- 3. Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client

- - Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client: That the Client Did Not Deceive the Complainant as to Intent to Defraud or Repayment Ability
- - Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client: The Client's Financial Condition at the Time
- - Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client: That the Client Had an Intent to Repay
- 4. Judgment in the Daegu Fraud Attorney Case

1. Facts Charged Against the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client
The client who sought the Daegu fraud attorney was an employee who had worked part-time at the victim's restaurant.
The client told the victim that, if the victim first transferred the rights to the restaurant's premises, the client would pay the transfer price later.
The client said that part of the transfer price would be provided by the client's family, part would come from money loaned to acquaintances being repaid, part would be provided by the family, and the remainder would be raised by obtaining a business loan related to operating the premises.
In reality, however, the Daegu fraud attorney's client had personal debts borrowed from banks and others at the time, the client's financial situation was poor and the client's credit was deteriorating, there was no money to be repaid by acquaintances or money raised by the defendant's family in connection with acquiring the premises, and even if the client obtained a loan related to operating the premises, the client intended to use it not for the transfer price but for repaying existing debts, operating funds, and living expenses, so the client had neither the intention nor the ability to pay the transfer price to the victim.
The Daegu fraud attorney's client was charged on the basis that the client deceived the victim as described above, took over the premises from the deceived victim, and yet acquired pecuniary benefit by not paying the transfer price.
2. The Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client Denies the Facts Charged
The Daegu fraud attorney's client never said that the client would repay loans made to acquaintances in order to pay the transfer price, but rather said that the client would raise the transfer price for the shop in this case with the help of the client's parents and through a loan, and the victim, while well aware that (1) the client's parents opposed the acquisition of the shop in this case and (2) the client was covering living expenses by drawing salary advances, among other circumstances, accepted the client's proposal to pay the transfer price through a loan and then entered into the transfer agreement for the shop in this case with the client.
Taking these circumstances together, the defendant denies the facts charged in this case in their entirety, on the grounds that the defendant did not deceive the complainant with respect to repayment ability and had no intent to defraud.
3. Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client
The Daegu fraud attorney denied the facts charged against the client and presented the following defense.
Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client: That the Client Did Not Deceive the Complainant as to Intent to Defraud or Repayment Ability
The victim transferred the shop in this case to the client while well aware that the Daegu fraud attorney's client was in a poor financial situation. The victim's family and the client's family were close and had a connection, which is why the client worked at the victim's shop.
The victim put the shop in this case up for sale, but when no one came forward to take it over, the victim asked the client, who was an employee, whether the client was interested in acquiring the shop.
At the time, the Daegu fraud attorney's client was living by drawing salary advances, so it was difficult to raise the acquisition price immediately.
The client's family, aware of this fact, strongly opposed the acquisition.
Given these circumstances, the victim either anticipated or could sufficiently have anticipated the risk of future delay in repayment or inability to repay at the time of concluding the transfer agreement for the shop in this case, so the mere fact that the Daegu fraud attorney's client later failed to make proper repayment cannot reasonably support a conclusion that the client deceived the victim as to repayment ability or had the intent required for the crime of fraud.
Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client: The Client's Financial Condition at the Time
The investigative authorities found that, at the time of concluding the transfer agreement for the shop in this case, the Daegu fraud attorney's client was in a poor financial situation, having taken out loans of around tens of millions of won, but this differs from the facts.
It is true that the client took out loans, but around the time the transfer agreement for the shop in this case was concluded, the outstanding loan balance was approximately 3 million won, which differs somewhat from what the investigative authorities ascertained.
Defense of the Daegu Fraud Attorney's Client: That the Client Had an Intent to Repay
When the loan did not proceed as planned, the client sought to pay the acquisition price even out of the proceeds from the shop in this case, and where that was insufficient, the client raised a loan from secondary and tertiary financial institutions and paid the transfer price.
4. Judgment in the Daegu Fraud Attorney Case
The Daegu fraud attorney demonstrated that the client had no intent to commit fraud and, citing the evidence, showed that there had been no deception, thereby obtaining a suspended sentence.
Fraud is a serious crime that may be punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 20 million won, and it can be difficult to avoid an actual term of imprisonment.
If you are in an unfair situation like the client's, you may consult the Daegu fraud attorney about your case.
![피자헤븐 [대구사기죄변호사] 대구사기죄변호사, 의뢰인 도와 사기범 집행유예 이끌어](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd1tgonli21s4df.cloudfront.net%2Fupload%2Fseo%2Fsuccess%2F20240620062528350.webp&w=828&q=100)
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.







