Crime of Giving Property in Breach of Trust | A Case That Led to a Suspended Sentence on a Charge of Giving Property in Breach of Trust

The crime of giving property in breach of trust is an offense committed when a person makes an improper solicitation to someone who handles the affairs of another regarding those affairs and gives that person, or a third party, property or a pecuniary benefit.

Under Article 357 of the Criminal Act, the crime of giving property in breach of trust is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to 5 million won.

Through the 2016 amendment to the Criminal Act, the recipient of the property or pecuniary benefit is not limited to a person who handles the affairs of another, and the offense may be committed even if the recipient is an unrelated third party.

The crime of taking property in breach of trust is an offense that arises when a person who handles the affairs of another receives, regarding those affairs, property or a pecuniary benefit in return for an improper solicitation.

The crime of giving property in breach of trust and the crime of taking property in breach of trust stand in a necessary co-offender relationship with 🔗embezzlement and breach of trust.

For the crime of taking property in breach of trust to be committed, there must be a solicitation by someone (the act of giving property in breach of trust), and for the offense to arise there must be an act of taking property in breach of trust that accepts it, so the requirements of each reinforce the other.

The crime of giving property in breach of trust, like the crime of taking property in breach of trust, ordinarily stands in a necessary co-offender relationship, but this does not mean that the recipient and the giver must always be punished together. A solicitation that falls within the legitimate business of the giver may still constitute an improper solicitation for the recipient. (Supreme Court, Judgment of January 15, 1991, 90Do2257)

Giving property in breach of trust ordinarily stands in a necessary co-offender relationship, but this does not mean that the recipient and the giver must always be punished together, and a solicitation that falls within the legitimate business of the giver may still constitute an improper solicitation for the recipient. (Supreme Court, Judgment of October 27, 2011, 2010Do7624)

🔗View the Supreme Court's judgment on punishment for breach of trust (click)

The criminal defense attorney representing the client emphasized that no objective evidence existed for the charge of giving property in breach of trust.

At present, the only basis for the facts charged against the client is the statement of co-defendant A.

In a criminal trial, a finding that a criminal act occurred must give the judge a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The client's criminal defense attorney argued that there was no evidence sufficient to establish such conviction regarding the charge, emphasizing that even if there were circumstances giving rise to suspicion of guilt, the matter should be decided in favor of the defendant, the client.

The criminal defense attorney pointed out problems with the credibility of co-defendant A's statement.

A also claimed to have heard that the client was preparing to recommend a close friend of his for the vacant position of general affairs manager in this case, but the client was not even aware that the position was vacant.

This is because the client worked in a field position, not at the office where the general affairs manager worked, and the role was not one with which he was directly connected.

In addition, the client rarely even encountered the office staff.

The criminal defense attorney emphasized that, at most, the client visited that office about three times a year, and that he had no reason whatsoever to make a solicitation regarding such an unrelated role.

In the case of giving property in breach of trust, it is important to demonstrate that the act was a simple mistake or carried out in accordance with custom, or to emphasize the legitimacy of the monetary transaction, in order to conclude the case with no charge or a minor penalty.

From the consultation stage, Daeryun Law Firm has an attorney review the case directly and focuses on protecting the client's rights and interests through a prompt response.

If you are in a situation requiring a response to a charge of giving property in breach of trust, please check a response strategy suited to your current circumstances through a 🔗legal consultation booking.

Daeryun supports the resolution of cases through the systematic strategies of legal professionals across multiple fields.