Suwon Attorney Recommendation Case | Client Who Received a Suwon Attorney Recommendation, No Referral Despite a Lease Contract Fraud Charge

The crime of fraud refers to a crime in which a person deceives another to receive property or to obtain a pecuniary benefit.

🔗lease disputes arise in various forms, such as fraud relating to leases, insurance fraud, and investment fraud, and the offense may be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 20 million won.

In the case of the crime of fraud, civil liability for the resulting property damage may also arise in addition to criminal punishment.

The Daeryun Suwon attorney set out to refute the assertions of the complainant, who had filed a complaint for the crime of fraud after not receiving the return of the lease deposit.

The Supreme Court holds that whether the crime of fraud is established must be assessed as of the time of the act, and that a defendant cannot be punished for the crime of fraud merely because the defendant subsequently falls into a state of default due to changes in economic circumstances arising after the act.

It was clear that the client had not been in a state of lacking the intention or the ability to return the lease deposit, having recently taken steps such as establishing a mortgage to secure the maximum amount on the building.

The Daeryun Suwon attorney submitted the bank transaction statements and a copy of the loan ledger inquiry as reference materials.

In addition, the client felt sorry for having been unable to return the lease deposit to the tenant because the flow of funds had been temporarily tied up by a sudden change in circumstances, and so the client raised no objection whatsoever in the civil proceedings concerning the claim for the return of the lease deposit, responding without pleading.

On this basis, the complainant asserted that the client had admitted to an act of deception, but the Suwon attorney argued that the client was merely acknowledging civil liability and had not admitted the criminal facts of fraud.

At present, the client is in the course of divorce litigation.

The client had sufficient ability to make repayment, and there was no difficulty in dividing the marital property despite the divorce litigation.

However, the client's spouse suddenly filed an application for provisional attachment with respect to the building in this case, and it was sold at auction for less than half of its market value.

Had the client sold the property at its proper value and had comfortable finances, a matter such as the complaint in this case would not have occurred.

The present situation was brought about by the spouse's unilateral commencement of the auction.

The Suwon attorney argued that, in such a situation, it would be exceedingly harsh to hold the client criminally liable in addition to civil liability.