1. Case Overview
a. Client Represented by Barun 안전 바카라사이트:
Defendant A (former executive director of an accounting firm) who was indicted for perjury.
b. Background and Charges:
While serving as an executive director at an accounting firm, Defendant A acted as the lead manager for fundraising to repay rehabilitation claims in the rehabilitation proceedings of Company B, a corporation that owned a golf course in Gyeonggi Province. During those proceedings, an M&A-type rehabilitation plan proposed by prospective acquirer C was approved.
Subsequently, the de facto manager of Company B filed a civil lawsuit against C, claiming that "C promised me pecuniary benefits during the rehabilitation proceedings, and based on that promise, related companies of B, which held voting rights, voted in favor of C's rehabilitation plan, allowing it to be approved. However, C later failed to deliver the promised benefits." During the civil trial, the plaintiff requested that Defendant A be summoned as a witness, and Defendant A testified accordingly.
Thereafter, the de facto manager of Company B accused Defendant A of perjury, alleging that the following portions of his testimony were false and contrary to his recollection: ① his testimony that he was unaware of C's alleged promise of pecuniary benefits, ② his testimony that he did not know about the de facto manager's borrowing of funds in connection with the acquisition process, and ③ his testimony that he was unaware of any involvement in discussions with a securities firm regarding loans to provide such pecuniary benefits.
Initially, both the police and the prosecution rendered a non-indictment decision (no charges) against Defendant A. However, following a reinvestigation order by the High Prosecutors' Office, Defendant A was indicted on the three alleged counts of perjury.
2. Trial Outcome (Acquittal) and Our Arguments and Role
Upon taking the case, our attorneys held extensive meetings with Defendant A and conducted a thorough review of the evidentiary record to analyze the facts and establish a detailed defense strategy.
During the first-instance trial, we cross-examined numerous witnesses, including Company B's de facto manager, CEO, and employees, as well as the CEO of Company C and others involved in the rehabilitation proceedings. we meticulously analyzed and presented evidence such as small handwritten notes on Company B's CEO's memo, highway toll (Hi-Pass) usage records for the defendant's whereabouts on specific dates, credit card transaction records, and relevant emails. Through these materials, we forcefully demonstrated that Defendant A's testimony was consistent with his memory and did not constitute perjury made contrary to recollection.
At the close of arguments, we submitted an 80-page written statement summarizing the results of all witness examinations and evidentiary reviews, asserting that the prosecution had failed to prove any of the charges.
On December 9, 2024, the first-instance court fully accepted the defense's arguments and rendered a verdict of not guilty on all counts. Although the prosecution appealed, we countered each of the prosecution's appellate arguments from multiple angles, and on September 24, 2025, the appellate court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal, thereby finalizing the acquittal of Defendant A.
3. Significance of the Acquittal
Individuals accused of perjury often experience extreme anxiety about potential criminal punishment and reputational harm, making it difficult to respond effectively to investigations or trial proceedings.
In this case, thanks to our early involvement and consistent advocacy, Defendant A was able to present a clear and consistent account of the facts. After indictment, the defense team strengthened its strategy by conducting an exhaustive review of the evidentiary record, analyzing the meaning of the small handwritten notes made by Company B's CEO, verifying Defendant A's whereabouts through toll and credit card records and email correspondence, and actively presenting these findings during witness examinations. Through this process, we successfully refuted the prosecution's claims and established that Defendant A's testimony was not a false statement contrary to recollection.
This case illustrates the importance of promptly engaging a defense attorney with expertise in criminal litigation, accurately identifying the key issues, and focusing on securing credible evidence capable of substantiating the defense.
