1. 안전 바카라사이트 Overview
a. Party Represented by 안전 바카라사이트:
The defendant, who was indicted for fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes.
b. Case Background:
The defendant was one of the executives who established a cryptocurrency-related business. While involved in a management dispute with the then CEO, the defendant received coins from the developer, who held them for the operation of the company. However, the defendant was soon removed from the executive position by the CEO and no longer participated in company management. Despite this, the defendant sold some of these coins to the victim before and after his dismissal. However, it was later revealed that the coins the defendant had received from the developer were unauthorized and had been issued arbitrarily by the developer. The prosecution alleged that the defendant was aware of this but still proceeded to sell the coins to the victim, leading to the fraud charges.
c. Litigation:
The victim presented the company’s entire transaction history of the stored coins and argued that:
• The coins sold by the defendant were unauthorized coins issued arbitrarily by the developer.
• At the time of the sale, these coins were illegally issued and could not be legally traded on exchanges in the future.
• The defendant had no intention or ability to facilitate their legitimate circulation but deceived the victim into purchasing them.
2. Court Ruling
On February 11, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court delivered a ruling in Decision No. 2024GoHap642, acquitting the defendant of all charges.
3. Basis of the Judgment
The court ruled that, even based on the transaction history submitted by the victim:
• Most of the coins in question could not be definitively classified as unauthorized.
• Even if some coins were suspected to be unauthorized, the coins received by the defendant were mostly deposited into a cryptocurrency exchange.
• These coins were then withdrawn from the exchange’s official wallet into an individual wallet controlled by the defendant before being sold to the victim.
Thus, since the coins in question had been transferred through an official exchange wallet, the court found that it was impossible to conclude with certainty that they were the same unauthorized coins alleged by the victim. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and issued a not guilty verdict.
4. Our Arguments and Role
We actively challenged the evidentiary admissibility and credibility of the transaction records submitted by the victim. In addition, after meticulously analyzing the transaction data, we successfully demonstrated that the coins sold by the defendant were unrelated to the unauthorized coins issued by the developer.
Furthermore, we established that:
• The defendant was unaware that the coins received from the developer were unauthorized.
• Even if the coins were unauthorized, once issued and circulated, they became indistinguishable from legitimate coins.
• The coins were actually traded normally in the market, further proving that their legitimacy could not be questioned.
These arguments convinced the court to rule in favor of the defendant, leading to a full acquittal.
5. Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of challenging the evidentiary value of documents unilaterally submitted by the alleged victim. Moreover, the court acknowledged key aspects of cryptocurrency transactions, including:
• Unauthorized and legitimate coins become indistinguishable once mixed within the same digital wallet.
• Even if a developer issues a coin without authorization, its market value and liquidity remain unaffected once it enters circulation.
By accepting these arguments, the court issued a not guilty verdict, setting a critical precedent for similar cases involving unauthorized cryptocurrency issuance and distribution in the future.
