[Exclusive] Police Cleared '14 Billion Won Fraud' with Forged Documents... Rookie Prosecutor Set It Right

Misappropriation of Funds Under the Pretext of Construction Payment
Police Accepted Materials Without Verification
Prosecution Became Suspicious and Launched Direct Investigation
Analysis of Account Records and Other Data Revealed Fabrication
Prosecutor Stresses "Importance of Investigative Authority"

A second-year prosecutor overturned a 1.4 billion won construction payment fraud case, which police had previously dismissed as non-criminal after relying solely on forged documents submitted by the suspect. The prosecution analyzed account records and financial data, confirming that the stolen funds were not used for actual construction but instead for "covering existing debts," and also found that some documents had been fabricated by the suspect. The case was then referred to trial.

Supreme Prosecutors' Office, Seocho-gu, Seoul. 2025.07.01 Photo by Dongju Yoon

According to the legal community on April 10, the Women's, Violent, and Narcotics Crime Division (headed by Chief Prosecutor Hong Sangcheol) of the Goyang Branch of the Uijeongbu District Prosecutors' Office indicted the head of a construction company, identified as Mr. A, without detention on April 18 on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud). Mr. A is accused of collecting a total of 1,427 million won from the victim on 11 occasions between April and September 2022, under the pretext of payment for constructing a neighborhood shopping center.

Previously, police in charge of the investigation decided not to transfer the case for prosecution in July 2024, stating that Mr. A had no charges. This was because Mr. A submitted materials claiming the money was actually spent on construction, and the police accepted these documents without any analysis or verification.

However, the prosecution, upon taking over the case, became suspicious as Mr. A was already on trial for a similar fraud case. The prosecution requested a supplementary investigation from the police. When the police again failed to conduct a thorough investigation, relying only on phone statements from those involved, the prosecution launched its own direct investigation.

Prosecutor Kwon Dasom, who handled the case, told The Asia Business Daily, "An analysis of the company’s account history and three years of financial statements and records of delinquencies revealed that the stolen funds were not used as construction expenses, but rather to cover existing debts." She added, "Some of the submitted documents were identified as false records, not official documents, but instead fabricated by Mr. A."

The victim, whose grievance was almost left unresolved due to the police investigation, finally received justice at the prosecution stage. The victim reportedly said, "Mr. A has already been indicted and is on trial for another case, and there are more than 10 victims, yet only in my case was he cleared of charges." The prosecution contacted the victim several times, reviewed additional evidence, and ultimately proceeded with the indictment.

Prosecutor Kwon emphasized that this case made her realize the importance of the prosecution’s investigative authority, as it is a "livelihood case" directly affecting the public. She argued that supplementary investigation rights are essential to maintain appropriate prosecution and judicial oversight.

She stated, "As a second-year rookie prosecutor, I mostly handle livelihood cases rather than high-profile investigations, and I feel there are many such issues at the frontline of investigations. If the prosecution’s right to conduct direct supplementary investigations is restricted, there is no realistic way to deal with inadequate supplementary investigations. For proper judicial oversight and to remedy unjust suffering of victims, supplementary investigation rights are absolutely necessary."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.