The suspect told the client, "A civic organization and a hospital will move into a building owned by a corporation of which he is the CEO, and when they move in, he will immediately pay off the debt with the 2 billion won deposit." The suspect registered the client as the secondary beneficiary in the building's trust ledger and borrowed a total of 1.7 billion won from the client. The suspect then told the client that he would repay the loaned amount if the client removed the secondary beneficiary status in order to obtain a new loan, and if the client did not repay the loan, the suspect would list the client as a new secondary beneficiary. In response, the client removed the secondary beneficiary status.
However, the client found out that NGO A had no plans to move into the building, and the hospital was only in the process of inquiring. In addition, the suspect only paid back a partial amount of KRW 700 million and did not list the client as the secondary beneficiary. The client filed charges against the suspect under the Violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment for Certain Economic Crimes (Fraud)but the case was dismissed for lack of charges, and the client filed an appeal, but the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Case issues
The question was whether the suspect could be said to have defrauded the client, but the investigating agency believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the suspect had defrauded the client, such as the confirmation of the worldwide agreement with Civil Society Organization A.
Troubleshooting issues
Our lawyers carefully reviewed the relevant evidence and submitted evidence that the global agreement with A civic organization submitted by the suspect was signed by the prospective head of the Seoul branch and that the CEO of A civic organization stated that he had no plans to relocate. In addition, we actively argued that the suspect deceived his client by stating that he had already signed a lease agreement with another person for the same floor of the building before signing the global agreement and that the deposit paid by the prospective head of the Seoul branch was a check borrowed by the complainant. re-investigation orderfor the disposed special prosecution fraud.
