Gwangju Attorney Recommendation | In a Fraud Case Involving Hundreds of Millions of Won, the First-Instance Judgment Was Upheld Despite the Prosecutor's Appeal on the Fraud Charge

The client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation had received a suspended sentence at the first instance on a charge of failing to pay an amount exceeding 100 million won related to a stock acquisition price.

The prosecutor appealed on the grounds that the nature of the offense was poor and that recovery of the victim's loss had not been confirmed.

The Gwangju attorney set out to provide assistance to have the prosecutor's appeal dismissed and to maintain the original judgment.

Fraud is the crime of deceiving another to receive property or to obtain a pecuniary benefit. The 🔗crime of fraud is committed only where there is a deceptive act, so proof of the deceptive act is required.

There must be an act of deceiving the other party, the other party must fall into error because of this deceptive act, a financial loss must occur such that an intent to unlawfully obtain property is shown, and there must be intent or design.

The applicable penalties and sentencing range are set out in the Criminal Act.

Under the Criminal Act, the crime of fraud is punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 20 million won, but where the amount gained is 500 million won or more, aggravated punishment is imposed under the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes.

∙ If the amount gained is 500 million won or more but less than 5 billion won, imprisonment for a definite term of at least 3 years
∙ If the amount gained is 5 billion won or more, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a definite term of at least 5 years
∙ In addition, a fine corresponding to up to the amount gained may be imposed concurrently.

The client who had been referred to a Gwangju attorney had already received a first-instance judgment after a thorough hearing on the charge.

The prosecutor's grounds for appeal had all been raised by both the prosecutor and the victim during the first-instance proceedings, and the court had reflected this in setting the sentence.

The Gwangju attorney emphasized that filing an appeal on the ground that the nature of the offense was bad, despite the absence of any special change in circumstances after the original judgment, amounted to nothing more than reproaching or criticizing the original judgment.

The Gwangju attorney also rebutted the prosecutor's argument that recovery of damages had not been carried out.

The core of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal was that the client had agreed to pay the damages to the victim but had not done so.

The Gwangju attorney submitted account records and other materials showing that the relevant damages had already been paid.