You are an employee of a food company, and together with an accomplice, who is also a coworker, you took food products destined for disposal without authorization from the company. Several months later, you and your coworkers were discovered by the company and were investigated by the police for grand theft. ■ Case Issues The client acknowledged his wrongdoing and was deeply remorseful for taking the food products belonging to the victim company without permission. However, the client had to explain that he was told by his team leader that the food products were to be disposed of, and that he took them home because he did not want to waste them and did not intentionally steal them. In addition, the client and his accomplices did not conspire to commit the crime, so it was important to change the crime from grand theft to simple theft. The client's defense lawyers compared the number of days the client committed the crime with the actual number of crimes, and concluded that the days when the client did not commit the crime should be excluded, and that the client only accidentally committed the crime with his accomplices.

In response to the victim's request for money, the client, together with the appellants, lent the victim tens of millions of won, but the full amount of the loan was not returned on the promised date. In order to get the money back, the client conspired with the appellants to lock the victim in his house, robbed him of his car and money, and assaulted him several times with dangerous objects while demanding the return of the money. As a result, a criminal case was filed by the victim, and the client was tried for special robbery and special confinement. ■ Case Issues Specialized robbery has a statutory lower limit of five years in prison, so in this case, the client and the appellant severely assaulted the victim with a dangerous object, which would have resulted in a minimum sentence of five years in prison if not reduced. However, there were sufficient mitigating circumstances, such as the fact that the victim had committed fraud against the client, which was one of the reasons for the client to assault the victim, and the client's care for the victim after the assault, such as taking care of the victim.

The client was in charge of store management at a store run by the victim, and he manipulated the POS records and took hundreds of thousands of won. The client also lied about his educational background and promised to get the victim's child into a university in the Seoul metropolitan area, despite the fact that he had not graduated from a prestigious university in Seoul. The client was put on trial for business embezzlement and fraud. ■ Case Issues The client admitted to all the facts and was remorseful. However, the victim claimed that the client must have embezzled a larger amount of money and was demanding a settlement of more than KRW 30 million, making it difficult to settle the case. Therefore, it was important for our lawyers to avoid imprisonment as much as possible by pleading guilty without settlement if the case could not be settled for a reasonable amount. ■ Resolving the Issues Ongang's lawyers were able to prove that their client had embezzled hundreds of thousands of won.

The client was the chairman of labor union A. He kept the prevailing wage litigation fee remitted by his members for several years from around 2017, but spent some of it for other purposes, used some of the union's activity fees, and forged 11 simple receipts to submit to the union's auditor in preparation for the audit. The client was tried on charges of business embezzlement, fraudulent document forgery, and falsifying documents. The client wanted to deny the crime because he did not intentionally commit the crime. However, given the years of the crime and the tens of millions of won in damages, it was very likely that the client would be sentenced to prison if he denied the crime and did not settle. It was important to convince the client to settle and receive a good behavior. The client initially denied all wrongdoing, but we convinced him to admit by explaining that spending prevailing wage litigation fees for other purposes constituted business misappropriation as a matter of law. We also convinced him that the union's substantial