법무법인바른 사이트는 IE11이상 혹은 타 브라우저에서
정상적으로 구동되도록 구현되었습니다.

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

1. Case Overview
The client managed a company established for the distribution of fresh fruit and its affiliates, together with a long-time acquaintance and business partner with whom he had jointly operated the companies for over ten years.

Although the client entrusted overall management authority to his partner, the partner betrayed that trust by misappropriating company funds. Once the client discovered this, he immediately removed the partner from his position as CEO and excluded him from management. To prevent further unauthorized management, the client took custody of the corporate seal, which he owned, from the company safe.

Harboring resentment, the partner accused the client of unlawfully entering the company premises to steal the corporate seal, obstructing corporate affairs through arbitrary management decisions, and damaging CCTV equipment inside the company. The partner filed criminal complaints for housebreaking, theft, obstruction of business, and property damage.

2. Key Issues
The client retained Barun Law, a firm with recognized expertise in criminal complaints and police investigation response, seeking to ensure that he would not be wrongfully punished and that a decision of non-referral (no charges) would be issued on all allegations.

3. Our Arguments and Role
Upon taking the case, we examined the facts and overall structure and concluded that the allegations in the complaint were inconsistent with the objective facts and, as a matter of law, could not constitute the crimes alleged.

Wen argued, based on objective evidence and legal principles, that the office the client entered was one he customarily accessed and therefore could not constitute the object of housebreaking, that the seal taken was under the client’s ownership and possession and thus could not constitute the object of theft, that the property alleged to have been damaged had not in fact been damaged, and, under the applicable ownership structure, no crime of property damage could be established, and that there was no evidence supporting the allegation that the client had committed obstruction of business.

The investigative authority accepted our arguments, ruling that the alleged crimes of housebreaking, theft, and property damage could not be established as a matter of law, and that there was no evidence supporting obstruction of business. Accordingly, it issued a decision of non-referral (no charges) on all counts.

4. Outcome and Significance
By consulting us at an early stage, the client was able to present the full circumstances of the case and obtain a complete non-referral decision. This outcome not only protected the client from malicious criminal complaints but also safeguarded his management rights from a partner who had sought to remove him from his CEO position and seize control of the company.