Successful Defense Result in the Dismissal of an Arrest Warrant for Quasi-Rape and Assault

An arrest warrant is not automatically issued simply because a case involves quasi-rape and assault. In this case as well, the investigative authorities strongly asserted the necessity of detention based on the substantiality of the criminal suspicion, concerns regarding the destruction of evidence, flight, and potential harm to the victim. However, the court determined that the investigation could proceed without detention at this stage and denied the arrest warrant. Ultimately, at the warrant stage, what matters is not merely the seriousness of the suspected offense, but whether specific circumstances demonstrating the actual necessity of detention have been sufficiently established.

The client promptly sought MEGA X after an arrest warrant was requested while the client was under investigation for allegations of quasi-rape and assault. The investigative authorities determined that the criminal suspicion had been substantiated to a considerable degree based on the victim’s statement and certain circumstantial evidence, while also emphasizing the seriousness of the matter given the nature of the case.

In addition, the authorities raised the possibility that the client might influence statements by persons involved, delete materials or attempt to contact others, or evade future investigative procedures. As a result, the client faced a very high likelihood of actual detention. In particular, the authorities further alleged that the client might cause additional harm to the victim based on the relationship between the victim and the client and circumstances following the incident. The response to the substantive examination of the arrest warrant therefore became a critical juncture capable of determining the overall direction of the case.

If detention were to become a reality, substantial restrictions would inevitably arise in subsequent questioning and trial preparation, the acquisition of materials, and the organization of statements. Through close consultations with the client, MEGA X reconstructed the facts from the beginning, identified the issues that were genuinely critical at the warrant stage, and promptly established a response strategy.

01
Concern Regarding Flight and Destruction of Evidence
02
Possibility of Causing Harm to the Victim

MEGA X determined that what matters at the warrant stage is not making a lengthy appeal based on a sense of injustice, but structuring and presenting the key facts and rebuttal arguments so that the judge can promptly assess them. Accordingly, we focused on responding to the substantive examination of the arrest warrant while simultaneously organizing the facts, rebutting the grounds for detention, and refining the materials to be submitted.

First, based on the client’s statement, we reorganized the circumstances before, during, and after the incident. We closely examined the differences between the circumstances interpreted unfavorably by the investigative authorities and the actual facts, whether any statements had been exaggerated or subjected to unwarranted inferences, and which points could be disputed when compared with objective materials.

Next, we emphasized that the concern regarding the destruction of evidence was not substantial. Major statements and materials had already been secured to a considerable extent, and there were no confirmed circumstances indicating that the client had refused to cooperate with the investigation or contacted persons involved in an attempt to destroy evidence. We therefore focused on establishing that the possibility of destruction of evidence asserted by the investigative authorities was closer to an abstract concern and did not constitute circumstances warranting physical detention at this stage.

We also specifically demonstrated that the concern regarding flight was difficult to sustain. The client had a fixed residence and established means of livelihood, as well as relatively clear family and social ties. In addition, we organized the client’s prior cooperation with the investigation and stated intention to appear, supporting with documentary materials that the likelihood of evading the investigative process or fleeing was low.

With respect to the concern that the client might harm the victim, we pointed out that a mere possibility must be distinguished from an actual risk. No new specific circumstances had emerged indicating that the client intended to harm the victim, and the client clearly expressed an intention to refrain from unnecessary contact with persons involved in the case going forward. In this manner, we proactively reduced the concerns that might arise for the court and persuasively demonstrated that the proceedings could continue while the client remained at liberty.

Arrest Warrant Denied