Changwon Attorney | Client Whose Acquittal on Fraud Charges Was Upheld Despite the Prosecutor's Appeal

The client had become entangled in fraud charges.

The co-defendants involved in the case along with the client had conspired to pose as the building owner without being the owner and to defraud a buyer of the purchase price.

The co-defendants then divided up roles such as a licensed real estate agent and other building owners, deceiving the victims and defrauding them of money.

The client had been indicted together with them on charges of taking part in the conduct in question.

The client received an acquittal at the first instance, but the prosecutor had filed an appeal.

The Changwon attorney set out to provide assistance in having the prosecutor's appeal dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.

The prosecutor argued that the client had engaged in 'conduct that reinforced the resolve to commit the offense.'

The Changwon attorney rebutted this by pointing out that, although the client had been offered a part in the offense, the client had declined.

The other defendants had asked the client to look into matters such as a corporate bank account to be used in the offense and the exchange of gift certificates, and the client did reply that they would, but in fact looked into nothing.

The prosecutor argued that the client had taken part based solely on the fact that the client had agreed to the other defendants' text messages.

The Changwon attorney emphasized that the client had not in fact carried out the other defendants' requests and again argued that the client had no connection to the offense at issue.

The Changwon attorney argued that the client was not an accomplice.

When another defendant asked about the progress of the matter they had requested, the client did make a remark to the effect of “I will look into it further,” but the client had no intention of actually looking into it and did not do so.

The Changwon attorney emphasized that the client not only committed no act of aiding, but also lacked the 'intent to aid' the principal's commission of the offense, and therefore did not meet the requirements for an accomplice.

As a result, the co-defendants received no assistance whatsoever in connection with the offense they had asked the client to help with.

The Changwon attorney emphasized this fact and argued that the client had no involvement in the offense at issue.