The client thought he was working as an employee of a law firm while looking for a part-time job and delivered cash several times as instructed by a member of a voice phishing organization. The client was investigated by the police for voice phishing cash delivery scheme. ■ Case Issues Although the client claimed that he worked under the direction of a law firm without knowing it, due to the circumstances of impersonating a financial institution employee, the long period of the crime, the large number of crimes, the large amount of damage, the receipt of money in cash, the rather large daily wage, and the fact that he did not go to an interview, it was a very difficult case to be acquitted, and if he did not agree to a substantial amount of the damage, he was expected to be imprisoned for about three years. After identifying the case, our lawyers were able to prove that the client was guilty of fraud through the details of the line conversations he had with the gang members, his usual sexual behavior, his part-time job search, and his inquiries about whether he was covered by the four major insurances.

The client was charged with violating the Act on Specific Economic Aggravated Penalties (Fraud) by deceiving the complainant by saying, "I will pay hundreds of millions of won if you transfer the names of the trademark rights in the complainant's name," even though the client had no intention and ability to pay the complainant hundreds of millions of won. ■ Case Issues The main issues in the case were (1) whether the client actually deceived the complainant, (2) whether the client had the intent to defraud, and (3) how many hundreds of millions of won each trademark right was worth. The client came to Ongang with a case that had been sent to the prosecutor's office. The police had sent the case to the prosecutor's office with a prosecution opinion stating that the charges were admissible based on the recordings submitted by the complainant. Ongang's defense lawyers prepared a defense brief that 1) legally refuted each of the issues, and 2) in the case of the recordings submitted by the complainant as the main evidence, only a portion of the conversation was included.

The client was sued for fraud for borrowing approximately KRW 100 million from the complainants with the promise of a high rate of return, but subsequently failing to return the principal and profits. ■ Issues The client argued that he did not borrow money from the complainants, but merely forwarded the complainants' investments to a stock investment expert. Therefore, the issue was whether the money received from the complainants was a loan or an investment. Resolution of the Issue Ongang Law Firm quickly identified the complex financial relationships in the case through in-depth interviews with the client, and then developed a persuasive argument that minimized the weaknesses and minimized the strengths: ➀ The client never encouraged the complainants to invest or promised to guarantee the principal; ➁ The complainants clearly understood that their money was to be invested in stocks; and ➂ The client not only passed on all the money received from the complainants to the stock investment specialist, but also the proceeds.

The client stole a luxury purse belonging to another member from a cabinet in the men's locker room of a gym. While chatting online to sell it on Carrot Market, a second-hand goods trading application, the client presented an acquaintance's social security card as his own, and was investigated for theft and official misconduct after the victim reported it. ■ Issues in the case The client was a senior in high school and was in the midst of a crucial period before entering college. Therefore, his most important goal was to avoid having a criminal record. However, he was able to present specific circumstances to the investigator in charge that warranted a deferred prosecution, and was able to obtain a summary judgment request at the police stage, which allowed him to conclude the case without even appearing in the investigation record. Onkang's defense attorneys attended the suspect interrogation and actively explained to the investigator in charge the circumstances of the client, who was a third-year high school student, and the history of the incident, and negotiated a settlement with the victim.