The client kept the cell phone that the victim had left behind on the bus and kept it to help find the victim, including calling the police, but due to his busy life, he forgot that he had kept the cell phone and left it unattended, and was reported by the victim for theft of possession. The client complained that it was unfair for him to be criminally punished because he had no intention of taking the cell phone, and he was worried about being sued by the victim. Therefore, in this case, it was important for the client to prove that he had no or weak intention of illegal gain, and furthermore, to settle the case amicably with the victim to avoid future civil litigation. After checking the investigation, our lawyers promptly submitted an opinion letter to the police stating that there was no or very weak intent to illegally benefit, and proactively applied for criminal mediation to the prosecutor's office and completed an amicable settlement with the victim during the criminal mediation process. As a result, our client was able to obtain a deferred prosecution and avoid any future civil litigation.

The client lent the defendant about 100 million won (check) in the name of stock investment around June 2012, but the defendant used it for personal use and lied to the client for about 10 years and did not repay a single penny. The client no longer wanted to be fooled by the defendant's lies and sought punishment from the defendant by filing a fraud complaint. ■ Case Issues The case occurred in June 2012, and given that the statute of limitations for fraud is 10 years, when the client came to us in May 2022, there was only one month left before the statute of limitations expired. We recognized that it was a difficult case for both us and the client, and we decided to settle for doing our best with the time we had left. Our lawyers quickly understood the case and requested the client to provide supporting evidence (cashbooks, copies of checks, etc.), and submitted the complaint and supplemental complaint to the investigative agency.

The complainant provided the client with real estate collateral for his business through the client's acquaintance, but the client changed the collateralized debt and established a mortgage contrary to the purpose of the collateral, and the collateral was auctioned off, and the client sued the complainant for falsification of documents, execution of falsified documents, untruthful entry in public electronic records, and untruthful entry in public electronic records. ■ Case Issues The client complained of injustice, claiming that the pledged collateral was provided by an acquaintance of the plaintiff, and that the creditor arbitrarily applied for the auction of the collateral, contrary to the previous agreement. The issues in the case were whether the client was directly deceived in the process of receiving the collateral, whether the client was involved in the arbitrary auction of the collateral, and whether the client could be legally held liable. Our lawyers quickly identified the complex facts of the case through in-depth interviews with the client, prepared and submitted opinions on the facts and law, and won the case in the client's favor.