1. Overview of the Case
The client was indicted on suspicion of being an accomplice who, together with a third party, was to bear criminal liability in connection with work related to a company at which he had previously been employed. During the investigation stage, the statements of the co-defendant were repeatedly reversed, and ultimately, based on those statements, the client too was judged to have been involved in the case and was sent to trial. The prosecution argued that the client had substantively operated other companies that existed only in name and had been involved in illegal transactions.
2. Key Issues and Response
Your Legal Team noted that the client's criminal liability could not be established on the co-defendant's statements alone, and that there were no circumstances showing that the client had actually directly participated in carrying out or planning the case.
Accordingly, Your Legal Team secured and submitted relevant physical evidence (internal company materials, account-access information, etc.) to prove that the prosecution witness's statements differed from the facts. We submitted objective circumstantial materials capable of proving that the client had been in a peripheral rather than a central position in the case, and emphasized the fact that the key figure of the case had held the actual benefit and authority.
This strategy was aimed at clearly drawing the legal boundary between mere practical involvement and intentional participation in illegal conduct, thereby countering the attempt to excessively expand the client's liability.
3. Result and Significance
By the court permitting the reopening of oral argument in trial proceedings that had already been concluded and were awaiting only the sentencing date, the client regained the opportunity to fully explain his position in court through additional evidence and witnesses. This case is a representative example of substantively securing the right of defense by responding, on the basis of objective evidence and systematic rebuttal logic, to a case indicted on fragmentary statements alone. In particular, the fact that the proceedings were reopened based on new materials even after the trial had been concluded is a highly meaningful achievement in practical terms.