After putting food on the stove, the client fell asleep for a while, but when he woke up, his house was on fire and he was rescued by firefighters, but after a while, he came to Ongang Law Firm complaining that he was being investigated by the police for 'arson of a prefectural building'. The client had a history of making frequent 112 calls, such as 'I am about to commit suicide', and had a history of attempted arson and obstruction of public administration, so the police strongly suspected that the fire was an attempt to commit suicide or self-harm, and to make matters worse, the fire forensic examination by the National Bureau of Investigation resulted in an appraisal opinion stating that it was 'difficult to believe it was a real fire'. Since the client was on probation at the time, he was expected to be sentenced to imprisonment if he was found guilty of arson of a residential building, which is only punishable by imprisonment, and the probation he had previously been sentenced to was also invalidated, resulting in a very embarrassing situation where he had to serve a double sentence. Ongang Law Firm's defense team was able to prove that the client's actions before falling asleep and the subsequent waking up and waiting for rescue were not the same.

The client was accused of child abuse by his biological daughter for many years. There were various circumstances, but he decided that it was difficult to solve the case on his own, so he contacted Ongang Law Firm. The client was accused of abusing his biological daughter, the complainant, for many years, and the method and timing of the crime were specific. However, the complainant suffered from mental illness and could not distinguish between reality and forgetfulness, and there were many witnesses, including her husband, during the period of time she claimed to have been abused, so it was necessary to prove that the client's accusation was false by synthesizing these circumstances. Our lawyers collected all of the complainant's medical and sentencing data from the client, and carefully prepared the contents of her statement to the investigating authorities through investigation practice. Afterwards, the lawyers testified together with the defense attorney, and in the defense opinion letter, they explained the complainant's mental history, submitted all of the medical data, and argued that the complainant's accusation of child abuse was due to delusion. The police authorized Law Firm Ongang

The client is a teacher at a daycare center, and has been abusive to the victim's mental health and development by slapping the victim's back with the palm of her hand because the victim was not eating well, then slapping the victim's back further when the victim was crying, and slapping the victim's face when the victim continued to cry, and the director of the daycare center and the victim's parents recognized these facts and reported the incident. ■ Case Issues There were parts of the CCTV that were exaggerated, and if the client did not intentionally hit the child in the CCTV footage, he had to explain the circumstances before and after the scene in question and state that it was not abuse, and quickly reach a settlement with the parents of the victim child to obtain a non-prosecution and prevent administrative penalties (employment restrictions for children's facilities). Ongang Law Firm's defense attorneys argued that the client was a first-time offender and that he had lost his temper while disciplining the child, which led to the crime.

The client arrived at his destination in a taxi after drinking alcohol, and after receiving a report that the customer was hitting him without paying, he slapped the police officer (Victim 1) on the head who responded to the scene, bit the upper part of Victim 2's right arm who was trying to restrain the client, and slashed the back of Victim 3's right hand to interfere with the police officers' legitimate duties in preventing, suppressing and investigating crimes. ■ Case Issues The client was in a situation where he had to prepare a defense based on the fact that he suffered from bipolar disorder and was undergoing treatment, and that he had no prior history of the same condition, and that he was drunk at the time of the incident, and that he had misunderstood and objected to the driver's statement that he had to pay for the fare, even though the fare was automatically paid when he used the app. ■ Issue Resolution Law Firm Ongang's defense team acknowledged that the client had done a great wrong, but was deeply remorseful and sincerely reflected on his mistake.

의뢰인은 기존에 고소인을 강제추행으로 고소한 사실이 있고 이 사건이 폭행으로 변경되어 검찰에 송치되었습니다. 고소인은 본인이 고소를 당하자 이를 무마하기 위해 무고로 의뢰인을 역고소하였습니다.   ■ 사건쟁점 고소인은 자신이 고소당한 사실에 대하여 의뢰인에게 압박을 주기 위해 무고죄로 역고소를 한 사안으로, 고소인이 주장하는 사실이 무고죄를 성립하는 요건에 부합하지 않다는 것을 법리적으로 주장해야 하는 상황이었습니다.   ■ 쟁점해결 법무법인 온강 변호인단은, 의뢰인이 이미 고소인을 별건으로 고소한 사안에 대하여 폭행죄로 검찰에 송치가 되었고, 해당 사실에 대한 목격자가 있으며, 의뢰인을 압박하고자 무리하게 무고로 고소한 사안으로 불송치 되어야 한다는 사실을 변호인 의견서를 통해 강력하게 주장하였습니다.   또한, 고소인이 고소한 무고죄에 대한 부분은 법리에 맞지 않음을 피력하였고, 경찰에서는 법무법인 온강의 의견을 적극 받아들여 불송치(각하)처분 하였습니다.

의뢰인은 자신의 자녀가 다른 친구를 때렸다며 해당 친구의 부모님으로부터 연락을 받게 되었고, 이에 자녀에게 상황을 물어보았음에도 계속 안 때렸다고 거짓말을 하기에 훈육을 하는 과정에서 이웃 주민의 소음 신고로 경찰관이 집으로 찾아와 아동학대 정황을 의심 받게 되었으며 이후 답답한 마음에 법무법인 온강을 찾아오셨습니다.   ■ 사건쟁점 의뢰인은 평소 자녀들과 매우 가까운 사이였고, 거짓말을 한 자녀를 바로 잡기 위하여 훈육을 하는 과정에서 벽쪽으로 던진 물품이 자녀에게 잘못 떨어졌지만 직접적으로 신체적 학대를 가한 사실이 전혀 없었던 점 등 행위에 이른 동기와 경위, 행위의 정도와 태양, 평소 성향이나 반복성이 없었기에 이를 아동학대 행위라고 볼 수 있는 것인지가 쟁점인 상황이었습니다.   ■ 쟁점해결 법무법인 온강 변호인단은 의뢰인이 평소 자녀들과 돈독한 관계이고 가족 간에도 화목한 점, 그리고 평소 훈육에도 거의

The client is the owner of a business that operates and supervises children, and an employee working at the business was accused by the guardians of the victim child, Aaron, of physically abusing him repeatedly when he vomited with food in his mouth. The client is also the owner of the business, and violated the Child Welfare Act for negligence in management and supervision, The investigative agency has filed charges of violating the Child Welfare Act and the Special Act on the Punishment of Crimes of Child Abuse (severe punishment for child abuse by child welfare facility workers, etc. It was important for us to prepare an opinion on whether the penalties could be applied to the client for negligent supervision and why the penalties should not be applied, based on the fact that he had been having regular meetings with his employees regarding child abuse, and to obtain factual confirmation from the employees who attended the actual meeting. Issue Resolution

The client installed CCTV cameras in his business for safety purposes. However, one of his employees accused the client of violating the Personal Information Protection Act by using the recording function of the CCTV cameras to monitor and record him, and secretly used the data. The complainant complained that she had not been treated unfairly by the client and filed a complaint, which led to this case. The client had to argue that the installation of CCTV in the workplace was not an illegal act and that the CCTV was not installed to monitor or record the complainant. Ongang Law Firm's defense team argued that 1. the client did not treat the complainant unfairly, but rather suffered mental stress due to the complainant's complaint; 2. the client installed the CCTV for safety purposes; 3. the client never used the recording function or listened to the sound, and there was no intention or need to do so.