Defense Case Concerning Occupational Embezzlement | Client Accused of Occupational Embezzlement, Wrongful Accusation Disproven and Non-Prosecution Obtained

Daeryun investigated the case in which the client came to be charged with occupational embezzlement.

The client was in a situation in which he was being investigated by the prosecution for occupational embezzlement and violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies.

The client came to be investigated on an occupational embezzlement charge because he had used, at his own discretion, government subsidies that could not be used for any purpose other than the support project, under the pretext of false labor costs.

Although the client had already left the association one year earlier, he had complied with a request from the association's president and his successor to ‘receive the labor costs under your own name for the time being and hand them over, since a financial problem has arisen.’

Because the client had no idea at all that this constituted an act falling under occupational embezzlement and a violation of the subsidy management provisions, he was extremely frightened.

Daeryun set out to provide assistance in order to clear the client's unfounded occupational embezzlement charge.

Embezzlement refers to a crime in which a person who keeps another's property embezzles that property or refuses to return it.

- Violation of the Criminal Act
• Where a person who keeps another's property embezzles that property or refuses to return it (Criminal Act, Article 355, Paragraph 1): imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won
• Where a person who administers another's affairs, through an act in breach of his duty, obtains a pecuniary benefit or causes a third party to obtain it, thereby inflicting loss on the principal (Criminal Act, Article 355, Paragraph 2): imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won
• A person who commits the crime under Article 355 in breach of an occupational duty (Criminal Act, Article 356): imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won

- Sentencing factors for embezzlement
• Where the risk of loss has not been substantially realized
• Where the degree of breach of duty is minor
• Sincere reflection
• No prior criminal punishment

Daeryun emphasized that the client had no awareness whatsoever that the act constituted occupational embezzlement and a violation of the subsidy management provisions.

At the request of his former colleagues, the client acted with the intention of helping out, believing that a problem had arisen in the association's finances.

Daeryun argued that the client obtained no benefit from the occupational embezzlement in question.

Had he had the intent to commit occupational embezzlement, he would have demanded a corresponding benefit.

However, the client obtained no benefit at all from the occupational embezzlement in question.

Using the client's account in his own name and the deposit and withdrawal records as evidence, Daeryun demonstrated that there was no separate commission received from the association and no intermediate benefit deducted.

Occupational embezzlement is a crime that is difficult to resolve alone, as it involves many complex legal issues.

Based on specialized knowledge of the relevant laws, Daeryun's attorneys specializing in this field represent clients, identify and present favorable evidence, and establish defense strategies to protect the rights of their clients.

In addition, the firm provides assistance with the various issues that may arise during the investigation and trial process, and it provides legal assistance tailored to each client's situation.

If you are being charged with occupational embezzlement in a situation such as the above, please contact a 🔗attorney specializing in this field at Daeryun Law Firm.