CONTENTS
- 1. Uijeongbu Attorney | Origin of the Case
- - Comparison of the Client's and the Complainant's Positions
- - Reasons the Assistance of Daeryun Law Firm May Be Needed
- 2. Uijeongbu Attorney | Case Analysis
- - Review of the Relevant Legal Principles
- 3. Uijeongbu Attorney | Legal Assistance Provided
- 4. Uijeongbu Attorney | No Suspicion of Crime Established, Concluding with a Final ‘Non-prosecution’
1. Uijeongbu Attorney | Origin of the Case
The client who came to the Uijeongbu attorney through the Uijeongbu attorney recommendation had agreed to undertake the construction of a new multi-household house in Gyeonggi-do together with the complainant.
The client stated that, at that time, there was an oral agreement that he would be in charge of the actual construction work and fund management.
Accordingly, the client used the construction payments deposited into an account in the complainant's name for construction-related expenses such as construction costs, material costs, and labor costs.
The complainant, however, claimed that the use of the funds was unclear and that about 300 million won had been privately diverted, and filed a complaint on a charge of occupational embezzlement.
The client expressed frustration, stating that he had completely denied all charges to the complainant and shown him the account statements, but the complainant did not believe him.
Comparison of the Client's and the Complainant's Positions
Client's position | Complainant's position |
He was in charge of construction and the execution of funds and held substantive management authority | Argues that, because the construction payment was deposited into his own account, he should manage it directly |
The funds were used in line with the purpose of the construction, for labor costs, material costs, subcontracting costs, and the like needed to carry out the construction | The use of the funds is unclear, and the documentation for the expenditure details is insufficient |
A clear division of roles was established through a verbal agreement, and the execution of funds was carried out accordingly | There was no written contract, so the division of roles was not clear, and the contents of the agreement itself were also unclear |
Argues that there was no intent whatsoever to misappropriate the funds and that all expenditures were for the legitimate purpose of the construction | Argues that the funds were withdrawn without his consent and that, because the accounting settlement was not properly carried out, harm occurred |
Reasons the Assistance of Daeryun Law Firm May Be Needed
Being suddenly accused by a business partner of occupational embezzlement and booked while running a business together in a partnership can be a great shock to anyone.
In particular, with occupational embezzlement, even if funds were not actually misappropriated, there is a risk of bearing all responsibility if that fact cannot be clearly proven, so careful and strategic response is needed from the early stage of the case.
Law Firm Daeryun has experienced specialist criminal attorneys in this field who assist clients in the following ways.
▷ Analysis of embezzlement-related precedents
▷ Review of civil contracts and confirmation of legal principles
▷ Representation in an amicable settlement with the victim
▷ Defense against a damages lawsuit
To avoid suffering disadvantage from a wrongful charge, early response is very important.
Please 🔗schedule a legal consultation to establish a defense strategy regarding the occupational embezzlement charge together with a specialist attorney.
2. Uijeongbu Attorney | Case Analysis
The client's case, for which a legal consultation was conducted through the Uijeongbu attorney recommendation, had the following issues.
Issue | Content |
Lawfulness of the disbursement of the construction payment | ▷ Confirming whether approximately 300 million won of the construction payment was actually used for the progress of the construction
|
Attribution of the authority to manage funds | ▷ Although the construction payment was deposited into an account in the complainant's name, determining unlawful intent to gain by confirming who actually held the authority to manage the funds
▷ Therefore, in this case, the issue is whether the client was the actual manager of the funds and whether those funds were held in safekeeping under a fiduciary relationship |
Presence of intent | ▷ Distinguishing whether the client deliberately misappropriated the funds or whether it was an accounting error or misunderstanding that arose in the course of normal business handling
|
Review of the Relevant Legal Principles
<🔗Occupational embezzlement elements>
Element | Explanation |
Custodian/manager | The actor must be in a position of holding in custody or managing another person's property in the course of business |
Intent | The conduct must have been carried out intentionally, with awareness that it was unlawful |
Nature of the conduct | There must be conduct such as using another person's property without authorization or consuming it for one's own benefit |
Occurrence of loss | Actual loss must have occurred to the owner of the property as a result of that conduct |
<🔗Embezzlement punishment levels>
Profit amount standard | Level of punishment |
General (profit amount under 500 million won) | Imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than 30 million won |
500 million won or more to under 5 billion won | Imprisonment for not less than 3 years |
5 billion won or more | Life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years |
Profit amount standard | Statute of limitations for prosecution |
General (profit amount under 500 million won) | 10 years |
500 million won or more | 15 years (when the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes applies) |
3. Uijeongbu Attorney | Legal Assistance Provided
To assist the client who received the Uijeongbu attorney recommendation, the following arguments were made.
Assistance | Description |
Proving the execution of construction payments | ▷ Organizing the flow of approximately 300 million won in construction payments and proving with accounting records that the expenditures, such as labor costs, material costs, and subcontracting costs, were for construction purposes
|
Proving authority over fund management | ▷ Proving through written statements from the site manager, subcontractor personnel, and others that the client had in substance been responsible for fund management and construction operations
|
Denying intent | ▷ Emphasizing that this was merely accounting confusion or a difference of opinion that arose during the construction settlement process and that there was no criminal intent
|
4. Uijeongbu Attorney | No Suspicion of Crime Established, Concluding with a Final ‘Non-prosecution’
The client, who had sought to defend against the charge through the Uijeongbu attorney recommendation, ultimately received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of no charge.
The prosecution, having reviewed this case, found no illegality in the client's use of funds and determined that the complainant's assertions alone could not establish intent for occupational embezzlement, ultimately issuing a disposition of no suspicion of crime.
Daeryun Law Firm has specialized attorneys who handle 🔗corporate embezzlement cases on a dedicated basis and respond at all times, so if needed, please obtain the assistance of an attorney.
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.
