CONTENTS
- 1. Gwangju Law Firm | Background of the Case
- - Relationship With the Complainant
- - The Complainant's Unilateral Breach of Contract
- - The Client Charged With Fraud
- 2. Gwangju Law Firm | Case Analysis
- - Points at Issue
- - Review of the Applicable Legal Principles
- 3. Gwangju Law Firm | Scope of Assistance
- - Rebutting the Complainant's False Claims
- - No Intent to Defraud
- 4. Gwangju Law Firm | Concluded With a Non-Referral Following a No-Charge Disposition
1. Gwangju Law Firm | Background of the Case
The background of this case, as reviewed by the attorney at the Gwangju law firm, is as follows.
Relationship With the Complainant
The client and the complainant were middle school classmates and had maintained a close friendship for a long time.
One day, the complainant called the client and asked, saying that the complainant had a newly starting business and wanted to be placed as an outsourcing vendor for the client's company.
As it turned out, the complainant had requested the job placement without having a properly established corporation.
Upon learning this, the client refused several times, but at the complainant's earnest request, the client actively helped, even going so far as to lend the client's own corporate business entity.
The Complainant's Unilateral Breach of Contract
In the meantime, due to internal circumstances at the client's company, the placement was delayed again and again, and as time passed and the placement did not take place, the complainant unilaterally breached the contract.
The complainant went so far as to claim that the client had intentionally committed fraud, with the intent to defraud, in connection with the 30 million won handed over for job placement.
In the end, in order to recover the amount paid to the client as consideration for the job placement, the complainant filed a complaint, and as a result the client was charged with fraud.
The Client Charged With Fraud
The client explained that they felt betrayed, having actively helped on the basis of the long relationship and trust with the complainant, only to be charged with fraud through the complainant's one-sided claim.
The client's position was that the client had lent the corporate business entity to the complainant and tried to carry out the procedures necessary for the job placement, but the delay occurred only because the complainant's own business procedures were not properly carried out.
2. Gwangju Law Firm | Case Analysis
An attorney at the Gwangju law firm reviewed the client's case and analyzed whether the facts actually met the elements of fraud.
Points at Issue
Although the client declined several times, the complainant first offered 30 million won under the pretext of arranging employment, and the client accepted it.
The complainant asked to have his own business introduced for outsourcing, yet he did not actually hold a corporate business entity.
In the end, the client actively helped by lending his own corporate name and in other ways, but matters were delayed due to internal circumstances at the client's company.
As the promised matters were being postponed, the complainant came to doubt the client's intent or ability to arrange employment.
In the end, he came to suspect that the client may have intended only to take the money without any intention of helping.
The complainant asked the client to treat the matter as void and to return the money, but the client refused, stating that it made no sense for the complainant to unilaterally break the agreement and then demand the money back.
Review of the Applicable Legal Principles
Article 347 of the Criminal Act (Fraud) |
A person who deceives another and receives the delivery of property or obtains a pecuniary benefit Imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine not exceeding 20 million won |
<🔗Elements of the Crime of Fraud >
Deception | Distorting facts or omitting important information to induce a mistaken judgment |
Pecuniary Benefit | Obtaining an undue monetary gain through the deception, or causing loss to the victim |
Intent and Premeditation | Proof is required of clear intent and advance planning rather than a mere mistake |
Influence on the Victim's Decision | Exerting a significant influence on the victim's decision and affecting his actual intent |
Repetition and Maliciousness | Aggravated punishment if similar conduct is repeated or the social impact is significant |
3. Gwangju Law Firm | Scope of Assistance
The attorney at the Gwangju law firm presented the following arguments in order to resolve the client's unjust situation.
Rebutting the Complainant's False Claims
The complainant's side first offered the money under the pretext of arrangement and also first raised the matter of breaking the agreement, but when things did not go well, he instead filed a complaint against the client.
In addition, because the complainant's side requested the arrangement by drawing on the client's ability and position while its corporation was not ready, the attorney argued that the client had in fact actively helped, including by personally preparing the corporation.
No Intent to Defraud
The client argued that he had merely received the amount that the complainant's side had first offered, and that there was no reason to return it because the complainant had unilaterally broken the agreement.
When the client stated that, even if he were to return it, he could return only part of it in the form of a penalty for breach, the complainant's side filed the complaint.
On this basis, the absence of any intent to defraud was established.
4. Gwangju Law Firm | Concluded With a Non-Referral Following a No-Charge Disposition
As a result of the arguments by an attorney at the Gwangju law firm, the client received a no-charge disposition and the case was not referred.
The police gave the reason for the non-referral as the client's account being entirely credible and the evidence presented by the complainant's side being insufficient.
The Gwangju attorney built a single team of legal professionals at Daeryun Law Firm to resolve the client's grievance and respond to the case, and was able to obtain a no-charge result.
When a person is implicated in a fraud case, the failure to prove the facts properly can lead to a heavy punishment on the fraud charge, so the assistance of a Gwangju attorney can be helpful.
If you are in an unjust situation after being implicated in a fraud charge, we recommend reaching out through the Gwangju law firm 🔗consultation booking to discuss the matter.
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.
