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

The client was invited by her boyfriend to work abroad, and she left for China, where she joined a voicemail fraud organization with her boyfriend, who was the ringleader, and acted as an agent. Later, her accomplices were arrested, and the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office requested an arrest warrant based on the client's alleged membership in a criminal organization and activities in a criminal organization. The client sought the assistance of Ongang Law Firm from the beginning of the investigation, and Ongang Law Firm also assisted her in the 'warrant substantive examination' to determine whether or not the court should arrest her. ■ Case Issues Although the client did not have a clear awareness that he was engaging in a voicemail fraud, he admitted that he should have suspected that he was engaging in a voicemail fraud at the time of the crime. However, in terms of the legal aspect of the 'scope of liability' of the accused, the following issues were raised: ➊ in the case of membership and activity in a criminal organization, whether the client could be considered to have joined and acted as a member of a criminal organization given that the organization in this case did not qualify as a 'criminal organization'; ➋ the limitation of the scope of liability depending on the time of the client's participation in the crime and his contribution to the crime; and

The client was charged with being a voice fraud call center agent after he called victims posing as an investigator from a voice fraud call center established by a Korean ethnic group leader and had them forward the money to a collector. The case involved the arrest and detention of the mastermind, who was in China, followed by the arrest and detention of the members of the organization who worked with him. All of the members of the phishing organization were arrested except for our client, and in order to avoid imprisonment, our client came to Ongang Law Firm, a law firm specializing in voice phishing, to help him obtain a suspended sentence. In this case, the client was looking for a law firm specializing in voice phishing to help him avoid imprisonment and to obtain a suspended sentence. ■ Case Issues In recent years, the level of punishment for forwarders and withdrawers, which are subordinate offenses in voice phishing cases, has increased, and unless a settlement is reached with the victims, they are sentenced to imprisonment. Therefore, it was common for the client to be detained during the investigation or trial.

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.

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