The client was experiencing considerable anxiety and distress as a result of her romantic partner's persistent harassment and coercive behavior, as well as the discovery of the alleged dashcam footage, which caused the client to break up with him after an argument. The client came to Ongang Law Firm due to anxiety related to the sextortion and dissemination, and before seeking our assistance, the client learned that the other party had already sued the client for special injury. The client was in an extremely stressful situation, not only as a victim of sextortion, but also as a suspect of special injury. Our client was in an extremely high state of fear of being arrested and at the same time was at risk of being investigated by the police as a suspect of special injury. In particular, the other party was suing for two special injuries, and it was necessary to achieve a quick settlement by inducing the other party to withdraw the complaint. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm represented the client in this case.

The client and the victim were legally married, and during an argument in the client's shared living quarters, the client became enraged when the victim suggested that they divorce, and the client struck the victim several times in the face and chest with both hands. When the victim attempted to call the client's mother, the client threatened the victim with "I'm going to kill you," and then grabbed a knife from a kitchen drawer and stabbed the victim in the neck."The victim was in serious fear for her life and reported the client for special assault, and he was sentenced to a fine at the first trial stage. However, the prosecution appealed the lighter sentence and the case went to appeal. ■ Case Issues In this case, although the incident occurred somewhat accidentally in the context of a domestic dispute, the client was charged with "special assault" because he held a knife, which, according to the Supreme Court's sentencing guidelines, would have resulted in a maximum sentence of one year and two months in prison, even if reduced. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm represented the client in this case.

The accused had a dispute with the victim over money, and during the course of the dispute, the accused decided to kill the victim, telling the victim, "Come out, you son of a bitch, I'm going to kill you," and took out an iron pipe that he kept in the trunk of his vehicle and approached the victim. After running and catching up with the fleeing victim, he struck the victim once in the head area with the above iron pipe to knock him out, and then struck the victim several times in the body area while he was lying on the ground. As a result, the victim was hospitalized with an open scalp wound and traumatic subdural hemorrhage that required about 8 weeks of treatment. The client was tried for attempted murder in the first instance and sentenced to 3 years in prison and probation, but the prosecution appealed and the case went to appeal. The defense admitted all the facts in the first trial, but denied intent to kill and claimed special injury. In addition, the defendant claimed other mitigating circumstances (accidental offense, victim's

The client was having a dispute with her neighbor over noise and other issues, and the neighbor claimed that the client scattered sand or water or made noise while doing household chores such as cleaning, which constituted physical child abuse or emotional child abuse. As a result, the neighbor accused the client of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse). The client came to our firm after the case had already been sent to the prosecutor's office at the police stage. The client strenuously denied the fact of child abuse from the beginning of the police investigation, but in most cases, the prosecutor's office will prosecute the case if the case is sent to the prosecutor's office (with a prosecution opinion) instead of being dismissed, and the complainant had submitted a number of CCTV videos to support the facts of the complaint, so a quick and proactive response was necessary. Ongang Law Firm's defense team argued that even if it was admitted that the complainant had engaged in somewhat careless behavior, such as blowing dust or water toward the neighbor's house or making noise, as claimed by the complainant, such dust or water scattering and noise

While walking in front of a club in an intoxicated state, the client was verbally abused and assaulted by two male club officials. He then assaulted two police officers, punching and kicking them because they did not believe him. The client, who was intoxicated, continued to lose his temper and protested to the officers, and was arrested on suspicion of obstruction of justice for assaulting two officers. The client had two prior convictions for violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Certain Crimes (assault by a driver), property damage, and assault while intoxicated prior to this incident, making him a three-time violent offender, so defense counsel's assistance was essential as the punishment could be severe. The defense team analyzed the video footage of the incident and argued that the assault was minor and that the police officers did not suffer any injuries. The defense team also carefully examined the client's life history and argued that the client was a

The client was accused of assault and battery by wrapping his arms around the victim's neck, pushing the victim down, and causing the victim to suffer injuries such as a traumatic rupture that required approximately 28 days of medical treatment. ■ Case Issues 1) The client had a relevant criminal record and admitted to wrapping his arms around the victim's neck, but he was firm in his intention to never settle with the victim because he was firm in his belief that the victim was an insurance fraud. Therefore, it was necessary to admit the assault part without considering settling with the victim at all, but deny the other facts. 2) In this case, the victim first approached the defendant and started arguing with him (so-called victim-induced assault), and then presented objective evidence that the victim's behavior was not typical.

The client was in a relationship with the defendant from June 2022 to December 2022, but the defendant assaulted the client several times during the relationship, and finally assaulted and injured the client while they were traveling together on December 2022. The client notified the defendant of the breakup, but the defendant did not accept the breakup and continued to stalk the client by sending her calls and messages, and the messages were obscene enough to cause sexual humiliation. The client suffered for a long time, including undergoing psychiatric treatment, but the defendant never showed any remorse, so the client sued the defendant for assault, battery, violation of the stalking statute, and harassment. The client sued the defendant, and the defendant also sued the client for assault and other charges, so it was important for the client to get a favorable outcome in this case first. In addition, the defendant asked the client to settle the case, but if a settlement could not be reached, the client pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The client was accused of physically abusing the child, violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Crimes of Child Abuse, violating the Child Welfare Act, and violating the Child Abuse Act by slapping the child's head once around June 2023, serving moldy apple jam around July 2023, making potato pancakes with expired tempura flour, and serving red bean shaved ice with expired milk. ■ Case Issues The issues in this case were whether a single slap on the child's head constituted abuse, and whether the food ingredients used, such as mold, expired flour, and milk, were problematic as claimed by the complainant, and whether, even if they were, they constituted child abuse. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm tried to prove that the client's single touch of the child did not constitute an assault, but rather a just discipline. Therefore, they gathered case law related to the issue and submitted it to the investigator, showing that even in light of other case law, this case was a just discipline and not abuse.

의뢰인은 발달장애인교육센터에서 근무하는 사회복지사로, 피해자는 위 센터를 이용하는 지적장애 2급의 장애인입니다. 의뢰인은 피해자에 대한 지도 과정에서 피해자의 신체에 폭행을 가하였다는 혐의로 장애인복지법위반으로 기소되었습니다.   ■ 사건쟁점 검사는 의뢰인을 상대로 취업제한명령을 청구하였고, 사실상 두 가정의 생계를 책임지고 있었던 의뢰인은 생계 활동을 필요로 하였기 때문에 취업제한명령에 대한 면제가 무조건적으로 필요한 상황이었습니다.   ■ 쟁점해결 법무법인 온강 변호인단은 이 사건 교육시설의 특수성, 피해자의 특수성, 피고인과 피해자의 특수한 관계, 이 사건 당일 피해자의 공격적, 파괴적인 행동 및 타이용자에 대한 스킨십 시도가 있었다는 경위를 구체적으로 해명한 변호인 의견서를 작성하여 제출하였습니다.   이에 더하여 법무법인 온강 변호인단은 이 사건 발생 당일 상황을 기재한 상담일지, 동료 교사 작성 사실확인서, 피해자 측으로부터 받은 처벌불원서를 확보하여 제출하였습니다.   이에 그치지 않고 정식재판청구

의뢰인은 불의의 사고로 20년 이상 강박 장애, 불안 장애, 공황장애, 조현병 등을 진단받아 여러 병원에서 치료받아온 환자입니다. 의뢰인과 피해자는 모자관계로, 이미 의뢰인은 존속폭행 등 폭력 범행으로 여러 차례 입건된 전력이 있었습니다. 그로 인해 의뢰인은 피해자를 상대로 접근금지가처분 결정을 받은 상태에서 재차 피해자의 집을 방문하여 위협을 가하였다는 혐의로 가정폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반으로 기소되었습니다.   ■ 사건쟁점 의뢰인은 이미 동종 및 이종 전과가 다수 있었고, 집행유예 기간 중 이 사건 범죄를 저질렀기 때문에 금고 이상의 실형을 선고받는 경우 집행유예가 실효되며, 이 사건에서는 집행유예를 받을 수 없어 무조건적으로 벌금형이 선고되어야 하는 사안이었습니다.   ■ 쟁점해결 법무법인 온강 변호인단은 피해자인 모친을 양형증인으로 신청하여 법정에서 증인신문을 통해   1) 이 사건 당일 구체적 경위 및 의뢰인이 폭력적 행위를 할 수밖에 없었던