법무법인바른 사이트는 IE11이상 혹은 타 브라우저에서
정상적으로 구동되도록 구현되었습니다.

익스플로러 10 이하버전에서는 브라우저 버전 업데이트 혹은
엣지, 크롬, 사파리등의 다른 브라우저로 접속을 부탁드립니다. 감사합니다.

Corporate Investigations & White Collar Defense General Criminal Litigation and Investigation Response

[Corporate Criminal] Barun Law Successfully Represents Two Construction Company CEOs Charged with Bribery, Dismissing Arrest Warrants Issued Against Them

1. Case Overview

A. The Parties Represented by Barun Law
Two CEOs of a construction company under police investigation for bribery.

B. Case Background
The police viewed the construction company's executives, employees, and site managers as co-principals in bribery, executing search and seizure warrants, including digital forensic investigations. During the investigation, the police identified additional allegations of bribery and conducted summons and confrontational investigations of the CEOs and employees. Subsequently, the police requested arrest warrants for the two CEOs, citing: seriousness of the crime, denial of the charges, lack of remorse and non-cooperation with the investigation, risk of flight; and possibility of harming other witnesses.

2. Court Ruling

The court ultimately dismissed the arrest warrants for both CEOs.

3. Our Arguments and Role

the substantive arrest warrant hearing, we successfully argued the following points, which the court considered in dismissing the arrest warrants:
(a) The CEOs had fully cooperated with the police investigation for approximately six months, showing no risk of evidence tampering or flight;
(b) One of the CEOs was of advanced age and in poor health, further diminishing the risk of flight; and
(c) Given that the police had already secured sufficient evidence through multiple search and seizure operations, digital forensic investigations, and summons/confrontational questioning, there was no need for custodial investigation.

4. Significance of the Ruling
Our detailed explanation of the cooperation shown by the CEOs and the advanced stage of the investigation persuaded the court to dismiss the arrest warrants. This decision underscores the principle that custodial investigation should only be used when absolutely necessary, particularly when sufficient evidence has already been gathered. The arguments and evidence presented by us in this case are expected to serve as an important reference for similar cases in the future.

- Attorneys involved: Lee Won-il, Chung Yang-hun, Ko Eun-young, Kang Da-rong and Cho Young-min