Fraud, computer fraud, illegal electronic payments, coercion into prostitution

Substantive examination of detention warrant

Investigating agencies are required to investigate without detention as a general rule, but they may apply to the court for a detention warrant when the suspect is reasonably suspected, lacks a fixed residence, or there is a risk of evidence destruction or flight.

Upon receiving the application for a detention warrant, the court summons the suspect and conducts an interrogation, during which it considers whether the grounds for detention listed above exist, as well as the gravity of the offence, the risk of reoffending, and the risk of harm to the victim and important witnesses, and then decides whether to issue the warrant.

If the warrant is issued, the suspect is immediately detained, and the police may detain for up to 10 days and the prosecution for up to 20 days.

Recently, attorney Joo Youngjae represented a suspect for whom a detention warrant was sought on charges including fraud, and we will present the case where the warrant request was refused.

Facts of the case

The client (suspect) met the victim through Facebook, called her 'big sister,' and frequently met and socialized with her.

However, the victim, who had a third-grade intellectual disability, happened to join a drinking gathering with the client and his seniors from his hometown. The client's acquaintances, realizing the victim's lower intelligence, conspired to defraud her of money.

Thereafter, the client's acquaintances had the victim open several mobile phones in her name and sold them to defraud her of the proceeds. They also received money from her under the pretext of loans without any intention to repay, stole the access means to her mother's bank account and transferred money without authorization, and forced the victim into prostitution to take the fees.

The police charged these individuals with fraud, computer fraud, violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and solicitation of prostitution, and applied for a detention warrant for the client, believing she had conspired in the crimes.

Assistance of attorney Joo Youngjae

The client claimed she had merely invited the victim to a drinking gathering with her acquaintances and had not participated in the crimes against her; on the contrary, she had prevented the victim from engaging in prostitution, and she denied the charges.

Accordingly, attorney Joo Youngjae argued that there was insufficient evidence of the client's criminal involvement, and that there was no risk of evidence destruction or flight, and sought the refusal of the warrant.

The court's decision

The court accepted the arguments of attorney Joo Youngjae and refused the police's application for a detention warrant, so the client was immediately released and will be investigated without detention.