Seongnam Fraud Attorney | Suspended Sentence in a Case of Defrauding an Acquaintance of 60 Million Won

The client argued that he had no intent to defraud.

In this way, the client admitted that he had deceived the victim and received the investment funds while unable to repay them, but he argued that he had not otherwise deceived the victim.

However, the victim's position was different.

In this way, the victim believed that the client had deliberately deceived him, and he stated that he filed a complaint because the client ignored and avoided his contacts even after the deceptive act.

1. Was there an intent to defraud?
It was necessary to determine whether the client intended to defraud the victim of the money or whether the situation simply arose from the difficulties of the business.

The client was unable to return the money because of the difficulties of the business, but he intended to repay it once the business went well.

2. The difference between the victim's argument and the client's argument
The victim argued that the client had deliberately deceived him, while the client argued that there was no intentional fraud, so their positions were in conflict.

To narrow the gap between the two parties' positions, it was necessary to check the conversation records and the remittance and transfer records.

3. Whether there was a deceptive act in the client's response after the remittance
It was necessary to review whether the client acted deceptively toward the victim after the remittance and whether that response was intended to deceive the victim.

In particular, it was important to establish that the client's response was not intended to deceive the victim.

4. The client's ignoring of the victim's contacts and the client's intent
It was necessary to determine whether the client's ignoring of the victim's contacts was a deliberate evasion or an impulsive act prompted by the circumstances.

It had to be proven that the client had merely avoided contact for a short time due to the stress arising from the difference in positions with the victim, and that he afterward had conversations toward a settlement.

The Seongnam attorney emphasized that the client had no intention whatsoever of committing fraud.

The attorney argued that the client received the acquaintance's money in a situation of business difficulty, acknowledged that he had failed to use the amount appropriately, and otherwise committed no deceptive act.

The attorney argued that the degree of the deceptive act was minor and that the client had made efforts to dispel the misunderstanding that arose in his communication with the victim.

Although the client did say that he would grow the money, the attorney explained that this was said with a view to when the investment company would later be listed, and that the client had no purpose of unlawfully deceiving the victim.

The client apologized for having cut off contact with the victim and attempted a settlement through amicable conversation.

The attorney also sought leniency by noting that the victim had received a partial return and that the client had ultimately accepted the victim's demands.