Real Estate Fraud Partial Acquittal in South Korea: Failed Proof of Deception Case
이 글의 한국어 원문: 부동산 사기 혐의 일부 무죄 받을 수 있나요? 차용금 기망행위 없음 입증 사례
Contents
- 1. Is Partial Acquittal Possible in Real Estate Fraud Cases?
- 2. Case Overview and Prosecution’s Charges
- 3. Defense Counsel’s Key Arguments
- 4. Court’s Grounds for Acquittal
- 5. Critical Evidence Analysis: Deleted Text on Promissory Note
- 6. Legal Implications of Failed Proof of Deception
- 7. Practical Implications of This Judgment
- 8. FAQ
Actual Case: A client facing four counts of real estate fraud. The prosecution alleged that the defendant defrauded Victim B of KRW 300 million as a deposit for property sale and KRW 100 million as sale-related expenses. Atlas Legal focused on deleted text in the promissory note and the trust relationship between the parties. In December 2025, Incheon District Court rendered an acquittal on these charges.
The Prosecution’s Indictment and Defense Counsel’s Counterargument
※ This case is based on Incheon District Court Case No. XXXX (Judgment rendered December 18, 2025). Personal information of the client and related parties has been anonymized.
The prosecution charged Defendant A with defrauding Victim B of a total of KRW 400 million on May 31 and June 1, 2021, claiming it was for a deposit and expenses related to purchasing unsold commercial units in Daejeon. However, Atlas Legal meticulously analyzed the key evidence—the promissory note. The typed text stating “to be used as deposit for Property C unsold commercial units in Seo-gu, Daejeon” had been crossed out with a pen, with the defendant’s seal stamped over it. This indicated that the money was delivered without specifying its purpose at the time of borrowing. The court accepted defense counsel’s arguments and rendered an acquittal on these charges. We will now explain in detail the legal principles and evidence analysis behind the court’s acquittal decision.
1. Is Partial Acquittal Possible in Real Estate Fraud Cases?
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
Partial acquittal in real estate fraud cases is entirely possible in South Korea. This is because the fundamental principles of criminal trials—the presumption of innocence and the “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, rule in favor of the defendant) principle—apply.
Article 27(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that “The accused shall be presumed innocent until a judgment of guilt has been pronounced,” and Article 275-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act states the same principle. As a fundamental principle of the rule of law inherent in these constitutional and criminal procedural provisions, if the prosecutor fails to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment must be made in favor of the defendant.
Supreme Court Precedent Standards
The Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11771 (February 26, 2015) clearly established this principle.
In other words, if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor fails to prove deceptive conduct and intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal must be rendered. This very principle was applied in the case handled by Atlas Legal.
2. Case Overview and Prosecution’s Charges
Overall Structure of the Case
This case was a complex real estate fraud case where Incheon District Court Case No. XXXX and three other cases were consolidated. Defendant A was indicted on multiple charges including fraud, forgery of private documents by impersonation, uttering of forged documents, embezzlement (recognized charge: fraud), and violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.
Charges on Which Acquittal Was Rendered
The acquittal portion discussed in this article concerns the fraud charges against Victim B dated May 31, 2021 and June 1, 2021.
According to the prosecution’s charges, on May 31, 2021, at Victim B’s residence, Defendant A allegedly made false statements to the effect that “I am trying to purchase all unsold commercial units in Daejeon, and first need KRW 300 million as a deposit. If you lend me KRW 300 million, I will repay KRW 600 million by August 31, 2021,” thereby receiving cashier’s checks worth KRW 300 million as borrowed funds.
Additionally, on June 1, 2021, at the same location, the defendant allegedly stated “I have contracted for the Daejeon unsold commercial units. About KRW 200 million is needed for sale-related expenses. If you lend me the sale expenses, I will definitely repay by August 5, 2021,” thereby receiving a transfer of KRW 100 million on June 10, 2021.
Judgment Result
In its judgment rendered on December 18, 2025, Incheon District Court sentenced Defendant A to one year of imprisonment, but rendered acquittal on the fraud charges dated May 31, 2021 and June 1, 2021.
3. Defense Counsel’s Key Arguments
Absence of Intent to Defraud
Atlas Legal presented the following key arguments in the fraud case against Victim B.
First, Defendant A had entered into a real estate exchange contract with Non-party D regarding land located in Jangho-won-eup, Icheon-si (hereinafter “the Subject Land”), and believed that D had authority to dispose of the Subject Land. Therefore, there was no intent to defraud in entering into the sales contract with Victim B.
Absence of Deceptive Conduct
Second, Defendant A borrowed KRW 300 million from Victim B for real estate business purposes without limiting the purpose to matters related to the Daejeon unsold commercial units, and therefore there was no deceptive conduct against Victim B.
Third, Defendant A borrowed KRW 100 million from Victim B for screen golf facility operating expenses, and therefore there was no deceptive conduct against Victim B.
Core Defense Strategy
The core defense strategy was to attack the “insufficiency of the prosecution’s proof.” The evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Defendant A received KRW 300 million from Victim B “for the deposit for Daejeon unsold commercial units” and KRW 100 million “for sale-related expenses.”
4. Court’s Grounds for Acquittal
Subjective Elements of Fraud
The court first confirmed the legal principles of fraud. Citing Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 (February 28, 2008) and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do443 (March 27, 2008), it stated as follows.
Standard for Determining Dolus Eventualis
The court also presented the standard for determining dolus eventualis. Citing Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726 (August 21, 2008), it stated as follows.
Conclusion on Acquittal
Applying the above legal principles, the court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to recognize that Defendant A received KRW 300 million from Victim B for the deposit for Daejeon unsold commercial units, or that the defendant received KRW 100 million for expenses related to the sale of Daejeon unsold commercial units, and there was no other evidence to recognize such facts.
Therefore, as each of these charged facts constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the court rendered acquittal for Defendant A under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
5. Critical Evidence Analysis: Deleted Text on Promissory Note
Decisive Evidence in the Promissory Note
The key evidence in this case was the promissory note (cash custody receipt) dated May 31, 2021. The court meticulously analyzed this promissory note.
Determination of When Deletion Occurred
The court analyzed when this deletion was made.
Significance of Evidence Analysis
This analysis is important because if the “deposit for Daejeon unsold commercial units” portion was deleted at the time of preparing the promissory note, it cannot be concluded that Victim B delivered the money for that purpose. In other words, the core of the “deceptive conduct” alleged by the prosecution—that the defendant “lied by claiming it was for the sale deposit”—is not proven.
6. Legal Implications of Failed Proof of Deception
Determination on Additional Borrowed Funds
The court also determined that proof of deceptive conduct was insufficient for the KRW 100 million borrowed on June 1, 2021.
Trust Relationship Between the Parties
The court also noted the trust relationship between Defendant A and Victim B.
Trust Relationship Evidenced by Transfer Circumstances
The court also noted the circumstances under which Defendant A transferred money to Victim B’s daughter’s account. According to the bank records, the actual sender’s name was not recorded, and Victim B was indicated as the depositor. The fact that Defendant A—who could not have known Victim B’s daughter’s account number—was able to transfer money to that account can only mean that Victim B directly provided the daughter’s account number to Defendant A. This circumstance supports that a trust relationship had been formed between Defendant A and Victim B, and that they had a relationship of providing funds without specifying their purpose.
7. Practical Implications of This Judgment
Importance of Evidence Analysis
This judgment demonstrates how important evidence analysis is in real estate fraud cases. A single deleted text on a promissory note became the decisive basis for acquittal. Such a result would have been difficult to achieve if defense counsel had not meticulously analyzed the evidence.
Strictness of Proving Deceptive Conduct
In fraud cases, deceptive conduct is not established simply by the fact that money was received. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt what specific lies the defendant told and whether the victim was deceived by those lies and delivered the money.
Consideration of Party Relationships
The court considered the trust relationship between Defendant A and Victim B. If there is a trust relationship between two parties and there is a possibility that money was delivered without specifying its purpose, it becomes difficult to recognize the “deceptive conduct for a specific purpose” alleged by the prosecution.
Role of Specialized Legal Counsel
Real estate fraud cases involve complex transaction relationships and numerous pieces of evidence. It is the role of specialized legal counsel to identify insufficiently proven aspects of the prosecution’s charges and apply appropriate legal principles for defense. In this case, Atlas Legal identified the deleted text on the promissory note as key evidence and achieved a partial acquittal.
Atlas Legal provides legal services in corporate advisory, corporate disputes, corporate consulting, and corporate crime (fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, tax law, customs law) in Songdo, Incheon, South Korea. Based on extensive experience in defending real estate fraud cases, we provide the best results for our clients.
8. FAQ
Q1. Can you receive a partial acquittal in real estate fraud cases in South Korea?
A. Yes, it is possible. If the evidence submitted by the prosecutor fails to prove deceptive conduct and intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal can be rendered. Atlas Legal recently obtained an acquittal on KRW 400 million worth of fraud charges at Incheon District Court (Case No. XXXX, judgment rendered December 18, 2025).
Q2. When is fraud not established even when borrowed money was received?
A. If it cannot be proven that money was received for a specific purpose (e.g., property sale deposit) at the time of borrowing, and there is a possibility that the money was delivered without specifying its purpose based on a trust relationship between the parties, deceptive conduct may not be recognized, resulting in acquittal.
Q3. What is the “in dubio pro reo” principle in South Korean criminal law?
A. In criminal trials, a finding of guilt must be based on evidence that gives the judge conviction beyond reasonable doubt that the charged facts are true. If such level of proof is not established, the judgment must be made in favor of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11771, February 26, 2015).
Q4. What is the legal significance when the purpose of borrowing is deleted from a promissory note?
A. If the specific purpose stated on a promissory note was deleted at the time of its creation, it becomes difficult to conclude that the money was delivered for that specific purpose. In this case, the court found that the “deposit for Daejeon unsold commercial units” text was deleted at the time of creating the promissory note, and therefore did not recognize the prosecution’s alleged deceptive conduct.
Q5. How is “intent to defraud” determined in South Korean fraud cases?
A. Unless the defendant confesses, the intent to defraud can only be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial status, environment, content of the crime, and the process of transaction performance before and after the crime. Fraud can also be established by dolus eventualis (conditional intent) (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, February 28, 2008).
Q6. How is it interpreted when the defendant transferred money to the victim’s daughter’s account?
A. When the bank record shows no actual sender name and only indicates the victim as the depositor, the fact that the defendant—who could not have known the victim’s daughter’s account number—was able to transfer money to that account suggests that the victim provided the account number. This supports the existence of a trust relationship between the parties.
Q7. What provision applies when acquittal is due to insufficient proof by the prosecutor?
A. When there is no proof of criminal facts, acquittal is pronounced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea. In this case, the court also stated that “as each of these charged facts constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the court renders acquittal for the defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”
Q8. Why is hiring a lawyer important in real estate fraud cases in South Korea?
A. Real estate fraud cases involve complex transaction relationships and numerous pieces of evidence. It is crucial to identify insufficiently proven aspects of the prosecution’s charges and apply appropriate legal principles for defense. Through the assistance of a specialized attorney, partial or full acquittal can be achieved. In this case, Atlas Legal identified the deleted text on the promissory note and achieved an acquittal.
Atlas Legal provides legal services in corporate advisory, corporate disputes, corporate consulting, and corporate crime (fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, tax law, customs law) in Songdo, Incheon, South Korea. In Incheon District Court Case No. XXXX (judgment rendered December 18, 2025), we represented Defendant A and obtained acquittal on the fraud charges against Victim B for KRW 300 million dated May 31, 2021 and KRW 100 million dated June 1, 2021. If you need specialized legal advice on real estate fraud cases, please contact Atlas Legal.
※ This case is based on Incheon District Court Case No. XXXX (Judgment rendered December 18, 2025). Personal information of the client and related parties has been anonymized.
