Suncheon Attorney Consultation Case | A Client Who Resolved an Embezzlement Grievance Through a Suncheon Attorney Consultation

Embezzlement refers to the 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 (Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act): imprisonment for up to five years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won

• Where a person who administers another's affairs obtains a pecuniary benefit or causes a third party to obtain one through an act in breach of his or her duty, thereby causing loss to the principal (Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act): imprisonment for up to five years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won

• A person who commits the crime under Article 355 in breach of an occupational duty (Article 356 of the Criminal Act): imprisonment for up to ten years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won

-Sentencing Factors for Embezzlement

▲ Where the risk of loss

was not substantially realized

▲ Where the degree of breach of duty was minor

▲ Sincere remorse

▲ No prior criminal punishment

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, Daeryun emphasized that the client had not known whether the act in question constituted occupational 🔗embezzlement.

At the instruction of a superior, the client received a business partner's funds into a personal account and then transferred them to the superior's account.

The superior had instructed the client to do so on the pretext that 'the company account had been attached and funds were urgently needed for operations.'

In reality, it was a period when the company's business performance was declining, and because the superior was also a founding member of the company, the client never suspected that it might be embezzlement.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, we argued that the client had no prior record of similar crimes such as embezzlement or breach of trust like the present case.

The client had simply regarded this as one of the company's business matters and was therefore very bewildered.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, we emphasized that the client had by no means intentionally taken part in the embezzlement.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, Daeryun argued that the client had gained no benefit from this case.

In fact, the client remitted the funds received as they were and never received any separate benefit from them.

Through a Suncheon attorney consultation, we used this information as evidence and emphasized that the embezzlement charge was deeply unfair.