SOMA successfully secured a full non-prosecution decision for a client facing a complex array of criminal allegations, including online defamation and threats.
SOMA Law Group was retained by a client facing a sweeping series of criminal allegations brought by a former partner. The complaints spanned multiple areas of criminal law: unauthorized access to private communications, criminal threats transmitted via KakaoTalk, defamation through Instagram posts and direct messages, embezzlement, and violations of the Credit Specialized Financial Business Act arising from disputed property and unauthorized credit card use.
What began as a digital harassment dispute quickly escalated into a multi-front criminal matter, placing the client under significant legal exposure across both personal and financial allegations.
Key Issues
The defense presented several layers of complexity that required precise and coordinated legal management:
Volume and Diversity of Charges: The client faced more than five distinct criminal charges simultaneously, each governed by different legal standards and demanding an independent factual rebuttal. Mounting a coherent defense across this breadth of allegations required careful prioritization and disciplined case management.
Contesting Threat Allegations: Among the most technically demanding issues was the "threat" designation. This characterization based on a pattern of alleged conduct spread across multiple dates and a high volume of KakaoTalk communications carried heightened criminal exposure. Dismantling it required a granular review of the full conversation record and a precise application of the legal standard distinguishing criminal threats from protected expression.
Digital Defamation Thresholds: The defamation allegations centered on Instagram content and private direct messages. Korean criminal defamation law imposes specific requirements, including the public dissemination of a statement and the articulation of specific facts capable of harming reputation. Establishing whether those thresholds were met demanded a close forensic analysis of platform-specific evidence, including message timestamps, deletion logs, and audience reach.
SOMA’s Strategy
SOMA's criminal team, led by attorneys with prior experience as military prosecutors, implemented a disciplined, evidence-driven strategy built around three core pillars.
Fact-Centric Rebuttal and Timeline Reconstruction: Rather than offering categorical denials, the team assembled a documented, chronological account of the underlying events and presented it directly to the investigative authorities. By reconstructing the actual sequence of communications and conduct, the defense exposed material inconsistencies in the complainant's narrative and provided investigators with a factually grounded alternative account.
Technical Defamation Analysis: With respect to the Instagram allegations, the team conducted a detailed review of message timestamps and deletion records to establish the precise sequence of events. The defense successfully demonstrated that the private direct messages, by their nature, lacked the element of public dissemination required under Korean criminal law. As to the public Instagram posts, the defense further established that the content did not rise to the level of a specific statement of fact necessary to sustain a criminal defamation charge.
Precedent-Based Contextualization of the Threat Allegations: To address the threat charges, the defense submitted the complete KakaoTalk communication logs to provide the full context in which the relevant messages were sent. Drawing on applicable legal precedents, the team persuaded the authorities that the messages at issue reflected expressions of temporary emotional distress in the context of a deteriorating personal relationship, and did not constitute criminal threats made with the intent to instill fear.
Result & Implications
Following SOMA's comprehensive legal submissions, the investigative authorities issued a Decision Not to Transfer on all charges, effectively closing the matter at the investigative stage without indictment. The client, who had entered the process hoping for nothing more than a reduction in potential penalties, was cleared of every allegation brought against them prior to prosecution.
This matter illustrates a point that is often underappreciated in cases involving digital communications and social media: the outcome turns almost entirely on the quality and speed of the initial evidentiary analysis. Charges that appear facially serious can, upon close examination, fail to meet the specific legal thresholds required for prosecution. Conversely, assumptions that a case will resolve through settlement can lead clients to forgo a full defense to which they were always entitled.
SOMA's approach in this matter reflects the firm's broader philosophy: settlement is one option among several, and it is never the default. Every matter warrants a rigorous threshold analysis to determine whether a full non-prosecution outcome is achievable before any other course of action is considered.
SOMA Law Group was retained by a client facing a sweeping series of criminal allegations brought by a former partner. The complaints spanned multiple areas of criminal law: unauthorized access to private communications, criminal threats transmitted via KakaoTalk, defamation through Instagram posts and direct messages, embezzlement, and violations of the Credit Specialized Financial Business Act arising from disputed property and unauthorized credit card use.
What began as a digital harassment dispute quickly escalated into a multi-front criminal matter, placing the client under significant legal exposure across both personal and financial allegations.
Key Issues
The defense presented several layers of complexity that required precise and coordinated legal management:
Volume and Diversity of Charges: The client faced more than five distinct criminal charges simultaneously, each governed by different legal standards and demanding an independent factual rebuttal. Mounting a coherent defense across this breadth of allegations required careful prioritization and disciplined case management.
Contesting Threat Allegations: Among the most technically demanding issues was the "threat" designation. This characterization based on a pattern of alleged conduct spread across multiple dates and a high volume of KakaoTalk communications carried heightened criminal exposure. Dismantling it required a granular review of the full conversation record and a precise application of the legal standard distinguishing criminal threats from protected expression.
Digital Defamation Thresholds: The defamation allegations centered on Instagram content and private direct messages. Korean criminal defamation law imposes specific requirements, including the public dissemination of a statement and the articulation of specific facts capable of harming reputation. Establishing whether those thresholds were met demanded a close forensic analysis of platform-specific evidence, including message timestamps, deletion logs, and audience reach.
SOMA’s Strategy
SOMA's criminal team, led by attorneys with prior experience as military prosecutors, implemented a disciplined, evidence-driven strategy built around three core pillars.
Fact-Centric Rebuttal and Timeline Reconstruction: Rather than offering categorical denials, the team assembled a documented, chronological account of the underlying events and presented it directly to the investigative authorities. By reconstructing the actual sequence of communications and conduct, the defense exposed material inconsistencies in the complainant's narrative and provided investigators with a factually grounded alternative account.
Technical Defamation Analysis: With respect to the Instagram allegations, the team conducted a detailed review of message timestamps and deletion records to establish the precise sequence of events. The defense successfully demonstrated that the private direct messages, by their nature, lacked the element of public dissemination required under Korean criminal law. As to the public Instagram posts, the defense further established that the content did not rise to the level of a specific statement of fact necessary to sustain a criminal defamation charge.
Precedent-Based Contextualization of the Threat Allegations: To address the threat charges, the defense submitted the complete KakaoTalk communication logs to provide the full context in which the relevant messages were sent. Drawing on applicable legal precedents, the team persuaded the authorities that the messages at issue reflected expressions of temporary emotional distress in the context of a deteriorating personal relationship, and did not constitute criminal threats made with the intent to instill fear.
Result & Implications
Following SOMA's comprehensive legal submissions, the investigative authorities issued a Decision Not to Transfer on all charges, effectively closing the matter at the investigative stage without indictment. The client, who had entered the process hoping for nothing more than a reduction in potential penalties, was cleared of every allegation brought against them prior to prosecution.
This matter illustrates a point that is often underappreciated in cases involving digital communications and social media: the outcome turns almost entirely on the quality and speed of the initial evidentiary analysis. Charges that appear facially serious can, upon close examination, fail to meet the specific legal thresholds required for prosecution. Conversely, assumptions that a case will resolve through settlement can lead clients to forgo a full defense to which they were always entitled.
SOMA's approach in this matter reflects the firm's broader philosophy: settlement is one option among several, and it is never the default. Every matter warrants a rigorous threshold analysis to determine whether a full non-prosecution outcome is achievable before any other course of action is considered.