Real Estate Fraud Partial Acquittal in South Korea: Failed Proof of Deception Case

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

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.