Punishment for Embezzlement｜Embezzlement Complaint, a Case That Led to a Non-Prosecution Decision of “No Suspicion of Crime”

Embezzlement is a crime that is established when a person who has been keeping another person's property arbitrarily disposes of or uses that property as if it were his or her own.

In particular, if property kept in connection with one's duties is arbitrarily handled, the conduct may be punished more severely as “occupational embezzlement” rather than ordinary embezzlement.

For punishment for embezzlement to actually apply, the following elements of the crime must be satisfied.

For punishment for embezzlement to actually apply to the client in this case, it had to be proven that the above elements, in particular the relationship of custody and the intent to unlawfully acquire, were clearly satisfied.

However, through the assistance of the criminal law attorney, it was demonstrated that the client's conduct did not fall within those requirements, and as a result, it was possible to obtain a determination that the application of punishment for embezzlement was difficult.

Punishment for embezzlement is based on Articles 355 and 356 of the Criminal Act, and the level of punishment is applied differently depending on the nature of the crime and the amount involved.

Ordinary Embezzlement (Article 355 of the Criminal Act) Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 15 million won

Occupational Embezzlement (Article 356 of the Criminal Act) Imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 30 million won

Aggravated Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes
At least 500 million won but less than 5 billion won: Imprisonment for a definite term of at least 3 years

5 billion won or more: Life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years

For punishment for embezzlement to be established, the accused must be a “person who keeps” another person's property.

However, the clients had no custody contract or relationship of entrustment with the complainant, and had merely continued to use the fixtures that had been inside the hotel at the time it was won at auction.

Accordingly, the criminal law attorney clearly demonstrated, based on the requirements for embezzlement under the Criminal Act, that the clients did not qualify as “keepers” and therefore could not be subject to punishment for embezzlement.

In addition, the clients had never disposed of the fixtures or claimed them as their own property, and had simply been using them in operating the hotel.

The criminal law attorney intensively demonstrated that the intent to unlawfully acquire must be objectively manifested externally for punishment for embezzlement to be possible, and that no such conduct existed in this case.

The complainant's demand for return was also a point of dispute.

In fact, the demand for return was made not by the complainant himself but by a person claiming to be the complainant's agent, and no power of attorney, certificate of seal impression, or other document proving the authority of agency was submitted.

On the ground that, under the Civil Act, no legal effect arises with respect to the principal unless the authority of agency is proven, the criminal law attorney emphasized that the demand for return was not legally valid.

Embezzlement is not readily established by mere use or refusal to return property; key requirements such as a relationship of custody and the intent to unlawfully acquire must be satisfied before it can lead to punishment.

In actual cases, however, interpretations of these requirements often diverge, and the outcome can vary greatly depending on the direction of the initial response.

Daeryun Law Firm systematically supports the entire case, from analysis of the facts to responses to investigative agencies and legal argumentation.

If you have been unfairly placed at risk of punishment for embezzlement, we recommend that you establish an accurate response strategy at the early stage of the case through a 🔗legal consultation appointment.