Seoul Criminal Attorney | Seoul Attorney Secures an Acquittal for a Client on a Fraud Charge

While running a business, the client had entered into a contract with a gas supplier (the victim) and was receiving a normal gas supply.

However, as the economy did not improve due to COVID-19, the client could no longer sustain the business under mounting debt.

As a result, the gas supplier was also unable to collect the gas payments from the client.

The client explained that he was accused of intentionally deceiving the victim, on the theory that he had entered into the gas supply contract without any intention to pay at the time of contracting.

The client firmly denied this, asserting that he had simply been unable to pay the gas charges because conditions had not improved, and that he had not deceived the victim.

The client firmly denied this.

He asserted that he had simply been unable to pay the gas charges because the store's situation had not improved, and that he had never deceived the victim from the outset.

He also explained that he had operated the business normally until just before bankruptcy and that he had intended to perform the contract with the supplier.

However, the client explained that he had unexpectedly faced a financial crisis and had ended up in a position where he could not pay the gas charges.

He explained to the attorney that this situation had arisen regardless of his intent, that it was therefore not an intentional act of fraud, and that he felt wronged, and he requested assistance.

The subject of the crime of fraud is a natural person. Here, this is understood to include a legal entity as well.

For the client to have completed the crime of fraud, he would have had to deceive the victim and enter into the contract despite having no intention to pay the gas supplier's charges (intent to defraud), and he would have had to possess the intent to obtain the gas supply unlawfully (intent of unlawful acquisition).

The crime of fraud has two main elements.

The first is an act of deception. There must be conduct that intentionally distorts or conceals facts so as to mislead the victim.

The second is pecuniary loss. It must be proven that the victim actually suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the act of deception.

In the client's case, there was no act of deception, and the nonpayment was due to financial reasons, so the elements of the crime of fraud were not satisfied.

After the Seoul criminal attorney reviewed the case, it was clear that in this matter the client had been in a situation entirely unrelated to fraud at the time of contracting.

At the time of entering into the gas supply contract, the client had intended to pay the charges, but he became unable to do so as the business fell into bankruptcy.

The client's financial difficulties were a temporary situation unrelated to any intentional act of deception, so there was no basis for punishing him for the crime of fraud.

The Seoul criminal attorney proved that the client had committed no act of deception whatsoever against the victim.

The client explained that, at the time he entered into the contract with the victim, he had intended to pay the gas charges, and that he had merely fallen behind on payments after going bankrupt when the business situation failed to improve.

The Seoul criminal attorney argued that the prosecution's witness statement was without testimonial effect.

The witness stated that, before the client entered into the contract with the victim, the client had made a remark to the effect that he was “probably going to go bankrupt soon.”

However, the attorney pointed out that this was something the client had said to the victim only after the gas supply contract had already been concluded.

On this basis, the Seoul attorney argued for acquittal, contending that the prosecution's witness testimony lacked evidentiary value.