Defense Resulting in Non-Referral to Prosecution at the Police Stage

The client purchased a building after hearing from the accuser that it had been illegally remodeled and illegally constructed. Nevertheless, in order to terminate the building purchase contract and recover the deposit, the client came under investigation by investigative authorities on suspicion of deceiving the court.

The accuser claimed that although the client had been informed, in the course of the lease agreement for the building at issue, that the first floor was designated for parking use and had been illegally constructed as a business premises, the client had not in fact been so informed, and thus alleged that the client had deceived the presiding court, constituting attempted fraud through litigation.

Accordingly, as soon as LEAP took on this case, it conducted an in-depth analysis of the entire factual background and established a strategy for how to respond.

Upon accepting this case, LEAP drew on its extensive experience, professional knowledge, and its own unique know-how to begin by establishing the best defense strategy, starting with an analysis of the factual background of the case.

LEAP first focused on the fact that, prior to entering into the lease agreement, the first floor of the building did not appear to be a parking lot, and that the client had carried out interior construction work in order to use both the first and second floors as business premises.

Accordingly, regarding the reasons why the client filed a civil lawsuit against the accuser, LEAP emphasized (1) that the client only learned that the first floor could not be used as a business premises after the interior construction had begun, and (2) that the client, having already incurred construction costs, sought to resolve the matter as favorably as possible, but was left with no choice but to file the civil lawsuit to recover damages after the landlord and the accuser turned a blind eye to the matter. Through these points, LEAP established that there had been no intent to deceive the court and no fraudulent intent whatsoever.

Next, LEAP closely examined every provision of the commercial lease agreement executed between the client and the accuser to identify weaknesses in the accuser's claims. The accuser claimed to have provided the client with all relevant documents, including the certified copy of the register, the building register, the cadastral map, and the certificate of confirmed land use plan, and asserted that the client's claim of not having received such documents amounted to deceiving the presiding court in the civil case.

However, upon LEAP's review of the entire factual record, it was discovered that the "land register," which the accuser was required to provide, and the "cadastral map," which the accuser claimed to have provided, were missing certain required items. LEAP therefore argued that the materials submitted by the accuser could not be regarded as sufficient evidence to support the accuser's claims, and that it was difficult to conclude that the accuser had provided the client with a detailed explanation of the subject property.

Finally, although the details cannot be fully disclosed, LEAP systematically and logically refuted each piece of evidence submitted by the accuser through its own evidence analysis system.

Based on LEAP's sincere efforts to help the client and its optimal strategy, it was established that the alleged deception of the court did not even meet the elements of fraud. As a result of LEAP's defense against each piece of evidence submitted by the accuser, using its own know-how, LEAP secured a decision not to refer the case to prosecution at the police investigation stage with respect to the charge of attempted fraud.

In fraud cases, the intensity of investigation and the severity of punishment are increasingly rising, and the statutory penalties are severe.

In this case, the attorneys at LEAP devoted their best efforts solely to defending the client, and through LEAP's differentiated strategy and response, achieved the best possible outcome: a decision not to refer the case to prosecution at the police stage.

In fraud cases, only thorough analysis and strategic response to the case can lead to the best outcome and prompt resolution.

The outcome depends entirely on who you work with and how you respond from the earliest stage of the case, so we strongly recommend seeking the assistance of a LEAP attorney with a proven track record of success in similar cases.