While working as a brokerage assistant for a company, the client arbitrarily spent about 100 million won on dozens of occasions without passing on the rent received from a tenant to the victim. The client was sued by the company for business embezzlement. Case Issues 1) First, in the case of business embezzlement, settlement with the victim was a priority. However, in this case, the victim made it clear to the client that the settlement could not proceed unless the client agreed to pay the full amount. 2) In this regard, it was expected that the defendant would face difficulties in admitting the facts of the prosecution as well as in proceeding with the settlement. 3) In addition, it was necessary to carefully review and organize the client's plea materials. Resolution of Issues Ongang Law Firm's defense team made every effort to reach a settlement with the victim. Although it was not possible to reimburse (i.e., recover damages) for the full amount stated in the indictment at this point in time.

During the process of smuggling the women into the U.S., the ex-husband demanded that the women be picked up at the airport and taken to a specific location if they wanted a collaborative divorce, without explaining the circumstances. The client was afraid that she would not be able to get a collaborative divorce, so she complied with the ex-husband's instructions. The incident caused the client in the U.S. extreme distress and resulted in charges of forgery of a public document, forgery of a public document, forgery of a private document, and forgery of a private document. The ex-husband had already been sentenced to a criminal judgment for the incident. He had falsely stated that he had been instructed by the client in connection with the incident, and the client's name was listed on the judgment. The client's name was also listed on the judgment. The client was in the U.S. and had no knowledge of the incident because she was living in the U.S. The client had no knowledge of the incident.

Company A was entrusted with the marketing and sale of 100 commercial buildings worth tens of billions of won. However, due to poor sales, the company was asked to recover the loan, and eventually decided to sell them all at a discount of about 60% from the initial sales price. Upon learning of this, CEO B conspired with real estate agents and loan brokers to extort loans from financial institutions by creating false sales contracts that inflated the sales price. The client, who was in charge of practical work as a deputy director of Company B, drew up a false sales contract under the direction of Representative B. The conspirators, including real estate agents and loan brokers, used it to apply for mortgages from banks and other financial institutions, and received a total of 10 billion won in remittances from the deceived victims. In addition, Company B decided to sell the shopping mall purchased for 10 billion won to D for 10 billion won, but drew up a false sales contract as if it was sold for 300 billion won and submitted it to the bank.

The client is a friend of the accomplice, who invested in Victim A's business and did not receive his investment back. The accomplice decided to take and dispose of Victim A's property to recover his investment, and went to the victim's office with the client. The client and his accomplice beat victims B and C, who were guarding the office, with weapons, found victim A, forced him to sign a disposition document after the assault, and detained him to prevent him from escaping. The client was later arrested by the police, who responded to a report from another person, and was investigated and tried on charges of robbery, special injury, violation of the Violent Crimes Act (joint injury), and violation of the Violent Crimes Act (joint detention). ■ Case Issues The client committed the crimes accidentally at the request of an accomplice, but faced serious charges for wielding a weapon, causing multiple victims, and detaining the victims to prevent them from reporting. Because this was a violent crime with a statutory minimum sentence of 7 years in prison and a maximum of 10 years in prison, a plea bargain could have resulted in a maximum of