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.

After leaving his job at an investment-related company, the client opened an open chat room to follow up with 10 clients he had managed. Later, he opened another open chat room with plans to start a business after filing a pseudo-investment advisory business registration. The client did not engage in any activities such as stock recommendations in the above two chat rooms, but there were accusations that the client provided investment advice without filing a pseudo-investment advisory business registration and received compensation, and the case was prosecuted for violating the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business Act. ■ Case Issues The client had recommended stock stocks to about 10 people, but it was a follow-up to the work he had done before leaving the company, and he had never recommended stock stocks in public open chat rooms. The issue was whether the client had provided investment advice to an unspecified number of people and whether he had received compensation from about 10 people. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm argued that the client's former company's business should not be considered as a business after the fact.

The client operated a coworking space and had a lease agreement with the complainant. The complainant did not move his residence after the lease expired and did not pay the landlord for mail storage after the lease expired. Nevertheless, the complainant accused the client of embezzlement, alleging that the client kept the mail sent to the complainant's address after the lease expired and refused to return the mail after receiving the complainant's request to return the mail. ■ Issues Whether to terminate the lease agreement between the client and the complainant, whether to settle the costs of the complainant's relocation and mail storage, whether to recognize the client's status as a custodian in connection with the embezzlement offense, whether to recognize the intent to illegally obtain, and whether the accused had specific notice of harm in connection with the blackmail offense. Resolution of the Issues Ongang Law Firm's defense team won the case.