We successfully represented a client who operated a real estate office specializing in court auction properties and was indicted on fraud charges in connection with the sales of fractional interests in land located within a development-restricted zone. Prosecutors alleged that the client had defrauded buyers (complainants) by failing to inform them that the land could not be developed because it was located within a development restriction zone, and by falsely promising that the land could be developed in accordance with a land division map and that roads could be constructed, even though such development was legally impossible. Based on these allegations, the client was indicted for fraudulently obtaining the buyers’ purchase payments.

In defending our client, we argued that (i) the client had sufficiently explained to the complainants that the land could not be developed because it was located in a development-restricted zone; (ii) the complainants had purchased the land for long-term investment purposes, fully aware of the development restrictions and believing that the value of the land would likely increase alongside the development of surrounding areas; and (iii) the client had never promised to develop the land or to construct roads as shown in the land division map. To support these claims, we submitted various pieces of evidence, including documents related to the land that had been presented to the complainants by our client, the language of the sale and purchase agreement, a certificate of fact from employees of the client’s company, and materials showing investment activity in nearby development-restricted zones.

We further noted that the complainants’ statements lacked consistency and credibility, highlighting that their accounts in police and prosecution investigations, court testimonies, and written statements have changed and contradicted with objective evidence. We also pointed out that there were inconsistencies in the statements even among the complainants.

At first instance, the court acquitted the defendant, finding that there was evidence supporting the defendant’s claims, while the complainants’ statements lacked credibility. The prosecution appealed the ruling, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that although the complainants’ statements were the most direct and essential evidence of the alleged fraud, they were inconsistent and unreliable.