CONTENTS
- 1. The Circumstances of the Case Handled by the Seoul Criminal Attorney
- - The Client's Account Heard by the Attorney
- 2. The Statutes Relevant to the Case Explained by the Seoul Criminal Attorney
- 3. The Seoul Criminal Attorney's Assistance for the Client
- - The Attorney's Argument ① No Intent
- - The Attorney's Argument ② No Benefit to the Client
- 4. The Result of the Seoul Criminal Attorney's Assistance
1. The Circumstances of the Case Handled by the Seoul Criminal Attorney
The client had been accused of embezzlement and was referred to prosecution.
To avoid a custodial sentence if at all possible, the client sought out an attorney with extensive experience in criminal cases and visited the Seoul branch office.
The Client's Account Heard by the Attorney
The client explained that he had been asked by an elder relative to look after a luxury car that had been leased on a long-term basis, and that he had also taken over the monthly installment payments.
However, not long afterward, the client's financial situation worsened, and because the high installment payments became burdensome, he passed the rental car along with the installment payments to a close acquaintance.
After that, the client had forgotten about the car, but one day he learned that the rental car company had accused him of embezzlement, claiming that the car had not been returned even though the rental period had ended.
Upon inquiry, it turned out that the person to whom the client had handed over the car had died in the meantime, and the car could not be located.
Feeling that this was unjust, the client sought out the Seoul criminal attorney to defend against punishment for embezzlement.
2. The Statutes Relevant to the Case Explained by the Seoul Criminal Attorney
Embezzlement usually arises together with breach of trust, so it is a type of property crime that is easily confused with breach of trust.
Embezzlement and breach of trust are alike in that they are offenses committed when a person embezzles another's property or assets, or obtains a financial benefit.
However, one must take care because their foundations differ, in that the object of embezzlement is property (an object) while the object of breach of trust is assets.
As in the client's case, when a person is alleged to have failed to return a borrowed vehicle, the object qualifies as property, so embezzlement may be committed.
The following statute applies to the punishment of embezzlement.
(1) A person who, having custody of another's property, embezzles it or refuses to return it shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than 15 million won.
Because there is no separate restriction on the objects for which embezzlement is established, even a trivial act such as taking shared office supplies of a company may be recognized as embezzlement, so caution is required.
In addition, if damage is caused in the course of embezzling property, the 🔗offense of destruction of property may also be established and the punishment may be aggravated, and civil liability such as a damages lawsuit may also arise, so caution is required.
If you are alleged to have committed embezzlement, you must have a sound understanding of the concepts of real rights and claims set out in the Civil Act, so it is important to receive assistance from an attorney experienced in related cases.
3. The Seoul Criminal Attorney's Assistance for the Client
The Seoul criminal attorney carefully gathered circumstantial evidence related to the client's case and mounted a defense so that the client would not be unjustly punished.
The Attorney's Argument ① No Intent
The client did not intentionally fail to return the vehicle, and he was entirely unaware that the rental car company that suffered harm would be harmed.
For embezzlement to be established, it must also be proven that the person committed embezzlement for personal benefit despite anticipating harm to the victim.
The Seoul criminal attorney emphasized that the client did not commit embezzlement intentionally but was unavoidably unable to return the vehicle, and argued that embezzlement was not constituted.
The Attorney's Argument ② No Benefit to the Client
The client gained no benefit whatsoever from failing to return the vehicle in question.
On the contrary, when the client handed the vehicle to another person, materials remained, such as messages in which he repeatedly urged payment of the installments and took care to ensure that the rental car company would suffer no harm.
The Seoul criminal attorney emphasized that because the client obtained no benefit at all, embezzlement was difficult to establish.
4. The Result of the Seoul Criminal Attorney's Assistance
Accepting the Seoul criminal attorney's arguments, the prosecution acknowledged that the evidence to prove the client's allegations was insufficient and did not proceed further with the case and issued a non-prosecution disposition.
If you are alleged to have committed embezzlement, whether you carried out conduct amounting to embezzlement is important, but whether that conduct involved an unlawful benefit and whether there was intent must also be considered together.
At Daeryun Law Firm, we quickly identify the scale and type of the client's case and then collaborate with experts in specialized fields to establish an optimal strategy.
If you are alleged to have committed embezzlement, please obtain assistance through an 🔗attorney recommendation.
See More
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
