[Acquisition of Stolen Property] Defense Resulting in Arrest Warrant Denied and Not Referred to Prosecution Decision

Practice AreaCriminalStagePoliceDispositionWarrant Denied

This content was translated by AI and may be incomplete or inaccurate.

Case Details

The client, a foreign national, was arrested on an emergency basis and an arrest warrant was requested on suspicion of being part of a group of stolen goods dealers who purchased phones stolen by thieves and resold them overseas. Given the scale and severity of the case, it received significant social attention, including media coverage.

Client's Request

Having been arrested on an emergency basis and facing a request for an arrest warrant, the client was deeply fearful and sought to resolve the situation by any means possible. However, as a foreign national who could not speak Korean, the client found it difficult to mount an active defense, and since the other co-conspirators had already been detained, the client was left with only a sense of despair over detention and actual imprisonment, and requested help from LEAP.

LEAP's Solution

As soon as we at LEAP took on the case,

① First, in order to establish the best defense strategy to secure denial of the arrest warrant request for the client who had been arrested on an emergency basis and was facing a warrant request, we began with a microscopic analysis of the entire case based on LEAP's unique know-how.

② At the same time, we searched for elements that could ultimately allow the client to deny the charge of acquiring stolen property altogether.

Based on our analysis, we identified the keys to resolving this case as:

First, proving the unnecessity of the arrest warrant request against the client to obtain a denial of the warrant request

Second, proving that the client had no awareness whatsoever that the goods were stolen, in order to ultimately clear the client of the charge of acquiring stolen property

We responded with a two-track strategy to achieve both of these goals.

Accordingly,

① As a top priority, we emphasized that there was no risk of the client fleeing or destroying evidence as stated in the arrest warrant request, and that there was no possibility of reoffending, arguing that investigation of any additional offenses could be sufficiently conducted without detention.

② We also consistently argued, throughout four rounds of repeated questioning, that the client had no awareness that the goods were stolen,

and while we cannot disclose everything that constitutes LEAP's know-how, we proceeded to prove this point using LEAP's own methods.

③ In addition, whenever we detected any circumstance that could be unfavorable to the client during questioning by the investigating authorities, we actively intervened, requesting suspension of questioning and consultations, focusing thoroughly on protecting the client.

Case Outcome

DISPOSITION

Warrant Denied

As soon as we took on the case, LEAP devoted all of our know-how to securing denial of the arrest warrant for the client, who had been arrested on an emergency basis, and unlike the other co-conspirators who were detained, LEAP's client ultimately obtained a denial of the arrest warrant.

Not content with merely securing the denial of the arrest warrant, we continued to actively advocate for the client, selecting the best strategy at each stage as the case progressed.

Through our genuine efforts to help the client, despite the client's involvement in a serious case that had even attracted media attention, we ultimately obtained a Not Referred to Prosecution decision on the charge of acquiring stolen property itself.

Reasons to Seek Help from a LEAP Attorney

This case attracted significant social attention, with even the media focusing on it, and the matter itself involved serious conduct for which severe punishment was expected.

In particular, because most of the co-conspirators were detained following emergency arrest, the case presented greater difficulties than other cases. Nevertheless, thanks to LEAP's distinctive strategy employed from the outset in actively pursuing the defense, LEAP's client, unlike the other co-conspirators, was investigated without detention despite having been arrested on an emergency basis, and ultimately obtained a Not Referred to Prosecution decision due to insufficient evidence, achieving success through LEAP's strategic defense.

From the earliest stages of a case, the outcome can change entirely depending on who you work with and how you respond, so we recommend seeking the assistance of a LEAP attorney with a proven track record of success in similar cases.

Case outcomes may vary depending on the specific facts and evidence, so it is important to organize records and identify the issues from an early stage.