[English Translations for Global Clients - Success Case]

1. Case Overview

The client had granted a friend permission to use a parcel of land free of charge.

Later, when the client needed to use the land personally, they requested the return of the property, but the other party refused, responding dismissively with statements like “Do whatever you want.”

Unable to wait any longer, the client hired workers to clear the planted crops and plant new trees.

The other party then filed a criminal complaint, alleging obstruction of rights, property damage, and theft, claiming that the client had damaged land they had been farming.

2. Taelim’s Assistance

From the outset, Taelim Law Firm identified that the elements of “obstruction of rights” under criminal law were not satisfied.

Specifically, the land in question belonged not to the client, but to the client’s son — meaning the client’s actions did not concern their own property rights, a core requirement for the offense.

Based on this clear legal argument, the prosecution accepted Taelim’s reasoning and amended the indictment, changing the charge from obstruction of rights to interference with business.

Taelim further demonstrated that the client’s actions were legitimate land management activities, not acts of destruction or unlawful interference.

They emphasized that the opposing party had only been a gratuitous user (borrower) of the land without ownership or tenancy rights, and therefore had limited legal protection.

Accordingly, the client’s conduct could not be deemed criminal under the circumstances.

3. Case Outcome

The court acknowledged that the client’s actions did not constitute intentional interference and that the opposing party’s status as a gratuitous user significantly limited their legal interests.

As a result, the theft charge was dismissed, and for the remaining business obstruction and property damage charges, the court imposed a lenient fine of KRW 2 million.

4. Significance of the Judgment

The offense of obstruction of rights presupposes that the defendant acted concerning their own property rights.

In this case, because the land was owned by the client’s son, the essential legal element of the crime was missing from the start.

Taelim Law Firm’s precise legal analysis and timely objection led the prosecution to revise the indictment and ultimately neutralize the major charges.

This case exemplifies how a strategic legal response and clear understanding of statutory elements can prevent unnecessary criminal liability and resolve complex property-related disputes through measured and lawful defense.

**

If you’re facing a similar situation,

don’t hesitate to reach out to Taelim Law Firm for legal assistance.