1. Overview of the Case
The client had operated a company and its affiliates for over ten years in the fresh-fruit distribution business, serving as co-representative director with a business partner.
The client handled business operations, while the partner oversaw finance and overall management. The partner betrayed this trust and misappropriated company funds. After the client removed the partner from the management front line, the partner retaliated by conspiring with a company employee, and under the pretext of advancing the company's U.S. business, unlawfully removed several high-value items owned by the company and transported them to the United States. The client filed a criminal complaint for theft through another 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 firm. However, the police investigator indicated an intention to issue a non-referral decision.
The client then retained Barun 바카라 사이트 꽁머니, which is known for its strong capabilities in criminal complaints and police-investigation response, to prevent the case from being unjustly closed.
2. Our Arguments and Role
We first focused on fast and detailed communication with the investigator to determine the precise basis for the intended non-referral. The investigator had been persuaded by the partner's claims that the client had approved the removal of the items, based on old KakaoTalk messages. The investigator also concluded that a business plan created in the company's name supported the alleged U.S. expansion and a U.S. entity's corporate registration showed the legitimacy of the claimed U.S. business purpose.
We closely reviewed the factual circumstances underlying the partner's assertions and analyzed the overall structure of the case. Based on this analysis, we concluded that the partner's claims were entirely untrue and that the partner's conduct constituted theft under the Criminal Act. Relying on objective evidence and legal principles, we established that the KakaoTalk messages submitted by the partner had been exchanged between the client and the partner four years before the incident or unrelated to the company's business and could not serve as a basis to claim that the client had approved the removal of company property. We further demonstrated that the business plan submitted by the partner had been drafted unilaterally by the partner and was unrelated to the company, and that the U.S. entity allegedly established for business expansion was, based on multiple pieces of evidence obtained, a shell company composed solely of the partner's family members with no actual operations.
In addition, we actively argued that the partner, without the client’s approval, had solicited individuals unrelated to the company through company employees in an attempt to fabricate false grounds for the company's purported U.S. expansion; that the partner and the employee who supported him had conspired to remove the property despite the client's explicit objections; and that, as a matter of law, taking company property in defiance of the representative director's express opposition constitutes theft. We further emphasized that, because the partner and the employee acted in concert, the conduct met the requirements not merely of theft, which was the offense originally alleged by the other law firm, but of special theft.
As a result, the investigative authorities accepted all of our arguments. The officer in charge reflected even the fact that the accused partner and the employee aligned with him had colluded, and accordingly changed the charge from "theft," which had been alleged in the initial complaint filed through another law firm, to "aggravated theft," as argued by us. The officer further reversed the initial decision not to refer the case and forwarded 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 to the prosecution.
3. Outcome and Significance
This case illustrates how the outcome of the same matter can differ dramatically depending on who handles 바카라 사이트 꽁머니. The client initially filed a criminal complaint through another law firm, but due to a lack of communication with the investigator and insufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged criminal conduct, the investigator initially expressed an intention not to refer the case. However, after we engaged in close communication with the investigator and prepared and presented concrete evidence substantiating the allegations, the police reversed their previous position and referred the case. Moreover, they referred 바카라 사이트 꽁머니 on charges of aggravated theft, a more serious offense than the original allegation, thereby securing a major success and delivering the highest level of satisfaction to the client.
