Fraud Allegations Acknowledged, Detention Warrant Dismissed at Warrant Review Hearing

Client Information

Individual / Suspect
 

Case Details

The client was under investigation for fraud after receiving funds from acquaintances as business investments while operating a restaurant business.

The investigative authorities alleged that the client had received money from multiple victims without the intent or ability to return the principal or pay the promised profits. Based on the number of victims and the scale of the alleged damages, the authorities requested a detention warrant.

The client did not dispute the factual allegations. However, after the case arose, the client had been voluntarily making repayments to the victims.

Decent Law Office prepared a defense opinion focusing on why the statutory grounds for detention under Korean criminal procedure were not satisfied in this case.

Under Article 70(1) of the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, detention may be considered only when there is a specific concern such as:

1) no fixed residence,
2) risk of evidence destruction, or
3) risk of flight.

Article 198(1) of the same Act also provides that criminal investigations should, in principle, be conducted without detention.

The seriousness of the alleged offense or the amount of damages may be considered in the overall assessment, but it does not, by itself, constitute an independent ground for detention.

Based on these principles, Decent Law Office presented the following points.


1. Evidence of Ongoing Repayment

Decent Law Office organized transfer records for each victim and demonstrated that the client had been making voluntary repayments even before being formally notified of the complaint.

The defense also submitted evidence showing that additional repayments had been made immediately before the warrant review hearing.


2. No Risk of Flight

Decent Law Office explained that the client’s initial delay in appearing for questioning was not an attempt to evade the investigation, but was due to the client’s hesitation while attempting to secure proper legal assistance.

The client later appeared voluntarily for questioning on two occasions and submitted relevant bank transaction records to the investigative authorities.

Decent Law Office also submitted medical records and family relationship documents showing that the client was the primary caregiver for a family member requiring medical care. This helped demonstrate that the client was unlikely to abandon the family and flee.


3. Fixed Residence Clearly Identified

Although the client’s registered address and actual place of residence were different, Decent Law Office explained that the difference resulted from a necessary relocation to care for a family member.

A lease agreement was submitted to confirm the client’s actual residence. Since both addresses were clearly identifiable, the defense argued that the client could not be considered to have no fixed residence.


4. Need for Investigation Without Detention

Decent Law Office emphasized that if the client were detained, the restaurant business would immediately be disrupted, which would also stop the ongoing repayment efforts.

The defense argued that allowing the client to continue working and making repayments while participating in the investigation would better serve the practical goal of victim recovery.