Content of the case

The client was usually interested in virtual assets, and if there was an altcoin project that he thought was promising, he purchased altcoins that were not listed on the virtual asset exchange in advance. When altcoins that the client had purchased earlier were listed on the virtual asset exchange, the price of altcoins soared and the client made a lot of transaction profits. As usual, while searching for various altcoin information through the Internet, the client found out about Coin A of Project K, which will be used for global payments using virtual assets. The client thought that a coin that can be paid is a very promising coin, so he purchased A coin. When many clients purchased A coins, K project officials invited the client to the area and showed that A coins were paid at various stores if A coins were already supported in some areas. After seeing that, the client became more trustworthy in Project K and Coin A. Since then, as the virtual asset investment craze began, clients' acquaintances began to visit clients who had previously benefited from the purchase of virtual assets and ask them how to purchase virtual assets. In addition, acquaintances wanted to know what Altcoin the client purchased, and the client also shared information on Coin A while introducing various Altcoins. Meanwhile, Project K received only Ethereum, not cash, in exchange for trading, so in order to purchase Coin A, it had to first purchase Ethereum from virtual asset exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb. The client told his acquaintances how to purchase and transfer virtual assets on exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb. However, some acquaintances said they were not good at handling computers and asked for the client to buy Ethereum and transfer it to Project K instead. It was difficult for the client to refuse the request of his acquaintances, and Coin A was also engaged in a special promotion to pay additional Coin A with 1+1 if the total sales volume met certain conditions, so he became an agent for Coin A.

Then one day, the client was contacted by the police to participate in the investigation of the suspect because his acquaintances sued him for pseudo-receiving. I participated in the investigation without a lawyer because the client thought it was a problem caused by misunderstanding with acquaintances and there was no special crime charge. However, unexpectedly, I received a summary order (penalty) that it was a similar reception act and visited the Cha & Kwon law office with the help of a lawyer.

Application law

Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts: No one shall engage in similar receiving acts.

A similar act of receiving investment refers to receiving investment by agreeing to pay the entire amount of investment or an amount exceeding it from an unspecified number of people without authorization under other laws and regulations (Article 2 of the same Act)

Help from Cha & Kwon Law Offices

In this case, it was largely a question of whether the defendant "agreed to pay the victim the full amount of the investment or more." In particular, the victims claimed that the complainant guaranteed to pay twice the principal for explaining "Coin A's 1+1 airdrop project."

Based on its expertise in virtual assets, Cha & Kwon's law offices explained to the court the airdrop promotion and general sales methods used in Altcoin, indicating that the defendant was also simply explaining the company's promotion. We also actively defended the defendant by pointing out that the victims arbitrarily interpreted the defendant's promotion explanation and repeated contradictory statements to testify against the defendant through witness interrogation.

Results

The Cha & Kwon law offices actively defended the Defendant in charge of formal trial claims, first trial, and appeal in this case, and as a result, both the first trial and the appellate court accepted the lawyer's opinion and acquitted the Defendant.