The client family was first introduced to the complainant around 50 years ago in 1975 when they were hiring a maid, but the complainant suffered from severe intellectual disabilities and lived with them for over 40 years, caring for her as a family member. The complainant's family members, who had not seen her for decades, suddenly came to visit and took her away, and the client family was accused of taking advantage of the complainant's mental and physical disabilities to obtain property benefits and engaging in unfair commercial activities using the disabled person. ■ Case Issues In order for the client family to be charged with habitual fraud and violation of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, it was necessary to determine 1) whether the client family took advantage of the complainant's inability to exercise her right to claim wages normally due to her weak intellectual ability and made her work as a secretary at a public office operated by the client family and failed to pay her salary, and whether the client family could be considered as the entity that committed these acts; 2) whether the complainant's work, which the complainant alleged, was such that she could receive minimum wage

After leaving his job at an investment-related company, the client opened an open chat room to follow up with 10 clients he had managed. Later, he opened another open chat room with plans to start a business after filing a pseudo-investment advisory business registration. The client did not engage in any activities such as stock recommendations in the above two chat rooms, but there were accusations that the client provided investment advice without filing a pseudo-investment advisory business registration and received compensation, and the case was prosecuted for violating the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act. ■ Case Issues The client had recommended stock stocks to about 10 people, but it was a follow-up to the work he had done before leaving the company, and he had never recommended stock stocks in public open chat rooms. The issue was whether the client had provided investment advice to an unspecified number of people and whether he had received compensation from about 10 people. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm argued that the client's former company's business should not be considered as a business after the fact.

The suspect told the client, "A civic organization and a hospital will move into the building owned by a corporation of which he is the CEO, and when they move in, he will immediately pay the debt with a deposit of KRW 2 billion." The suspect registered the client as the secondary beneficiary in the building's trust ledger and borrowed a total of KRW 1.7 billion from the client. The suspect then told the client that he would repay the loan if the client removed his status as the secondary beneficiary in order to obtain a new loan, and if he did not repay the loan, he would list him as the secondary beneficiary. However, when the client investigated, it turned out that A civic organization had no plans to move into the building, and the hospital was only in the process of inquiring. In addition, the suspect only repaid a partial amount of KRW 700 million and did not list the client as the secondary beneficiary. The client filed a lawsuit against the suspect for violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specified Economic Crimes (fraud), but the case was dismissed due to lack of suspicion, and the client filed an appeal.

The client was charged with defrauding the victims of approximately 26 million won ($26,000) worth of gift certificates at a carrot market by randomly capturing photos of mobile gift certificates posted by the victims and exchanging them. ■ Case Issues The investigating agency requested an arrest warrant for the client on the grounds that the crime was serious, there was a high likelihood of future recidivism, and there was a possibility of evidence destruction, given the client's long period of criminal activity, the sophistication of the crime, and the client's actions to avoid detection during the crime. The investigating agency also suspected that the client had committed many additional crimes in addition to this crime, based on the client's account transaction history. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm decided to confess to the crime and admit to the additional crimes suspected by the investigative agency, as it was difficult to deny the crime and contest the charges, as important evidence had already been secured during the investigation, such as the seizure of all the gift certificates. And