a. Party Represented by Barun Law

The defendant, who was sentenced to 10 months in prison in the first trial.

b. Background of the Case

The client's deceased husband (the decedent in this case) was the owner of four real estate properties. While undergoing cancer treatment in a hospital, he passed away. The prosecutor claimed that although the decedent lacked the mental capacity to donate the properties, the client took advantage of the fact that she possessed the decedent's seal and forged donation contracts that transferred ownership of the properties to herself and her children. Based on these forged contracts, ownership transfers were carried out, leading to charges of forgery of private documents, exercising forged documents, falsification of official electronic records, and exercising falsified official electronic records. Additionally, filing a charge of attempted fraud against the client, the prosecutor argued that the client had submitted the forged donation contracts in an attempt to deceive the court and obtain financial benefits equivalent to Mr. A's inheritance share in a civil lawsuit filed by the client's stepchild ("Mr. A"), and that as the court ordered the client and her children to proceed with the transfer of ownership to Mr. A for the inherited share of the properties for the client to fail to achieve her intent.

c. Litigation Details

The first trial court made the following judgment, finding all charges to be true and sentencing the client to 10 months in prison: "It could not be determined whether the fingerprint on the confirmation document used for the ownership transfer was indeed stamped by the deceased. In the civil lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the client, witness Mr. B, who handled the ownership transfer procedure for the properties, testified that 'the deceased had expressed his intent to donate'. However, Mr. B's testimony was deemed unreliable, and considering that the caregiver, who cared for the deceased until his death, testified that 'she never heard the deceased speak', it was concluded that the witness had forged the donation contracts. The witness used these forged donation contracts to carry out the ownership transfer procedure, and the forged donation contracts were also submitted as evidence in the civil lawsuit with Mr. A."

2. Judgment

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2023No2451, dated August 28, 2024.

3. Our Argument and Role

After being appointed as defense counsel for the appeal, Our Tax and Administrative Group carefully analyzed the first trial judgment, thoroughly reviewed existing records, and closely examined the legal principles regarding document forgery, litigation fraud, and the burden of proof in criminal procedure.

Specifically, (a) we conducted a forensic comparison of the fingerprint on the confirmation document used for the property transfer against the decedent's fingerprint stored by the National Police Agency, proving that the fingerprint belonged to the decedent. (b) We carefully analyzed the decedent's medical records, highlighting that the first trial judgment had overlooked medical records showing that the decedent was conscious around the time the donation contracts were made, thus contradicting the conclusion that the decedent lacked mental capacity. (c) The defense also demonstrated that the first trial court had wrongly accepted the caregiver's testimony (who was not present during the deceased's expression of his intent to donate and delegate authority) as evidence of the decedent’s incompetence. (d) We also pointed out that the first trial had misunderstood the civil judgment regarding the stepchild's inheritance recovery lawsuit and had applied civil law principles directly to the criminal case, leading to an error in assessing the burden of proof and the credibility of witness testimony in the criminal proceedings. (e) Finally, the defense highlighted family matters that had not been emphasized in the first trial, showing that the decedent had intended to donate the properties to the client and her children even before his hospitalization.

The appellate court accepted our arguments, overturned the first trial decision, and acquitted the client.

This case reaffirms that the burden of proof and the standard of evidence in criminal trials differ from civil cases. Even if forgery was confirmed in a related civil case, the prosecutor must still prove the criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings, underscoring the importance of this principle in legal practice.

□  Attorneys in charge: Jung Jae-Hee, Park Sung-Ho and Son Ju-Yeong