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 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.

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

The client, a childcare worker at a daycare center, was accused of physical abuse and neglect by the child's parents of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Crimes of Child Abuse (severe punishment for child abuse by child welfare facility workers), alleging that she had physically abused and neglected the 2-year-old child in her care by slapping the child's hand once while stopping her from hitting another child. The case started with a misunderstanding between the parents of the victim child who suspected that the victim child had been injured frequently during his stay at the daycare center. The client claimed that the victim child's injuries were caused by a fall during a walk or a fight with another child, and that he had not intentionally inflicted physical or mental abuse on the victim child because he responded immediately. After reviewing whether there was intentional abuse by immediately securing CCTV data and checking the video, our defense team prepared a defense opinion stating that there was no intentional abuse, along with an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The client broke up with her boyfriend and was told by him not to contact her. However, the client sent about 190 messages, made 79 phone calls, and went to her boyfriend's workplace and residence to settle debts from their relationship. The client was arrested for stalking and residential trespassing in front of her boyfriend's residence, and the case proceeded. ■ Case Issues The client received a provisional measure decision from the court while the investigation was underway for violation of the Stalking Penalties Act and residential invasion, but while hospitalized in the hospital due to paranoid mania, the client continued to try to contact the victim using a public phone. As a result, the client was charged with violating the provisional measure, and it was necessary to seek the best possible punishment through an amicable settlement with the victim. The defense team of Ongang Law Firm argued that the client was remorseful, that the client's behavior was not threatening or disturbing to the peace, that the client's deteriorating health condition led to the incident, and that the client was actively