Assistance from the Namyangju Law Office | The Namyangju Law Office Successfully Proves the Innocence of a Client Charged with Embezzlement

Occupational embezzlement refers to the crime of embezzling another person’s property held in the course of one’s duties, in violation of that duty.

- Violation of the Criminal Act

• Where a person who holds another’s property embezzles that property or refuses to return it (Article 355, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act): imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won

• Where a person who handles another’s affairs, through an act in violation of that duty, obtains a pecuniary advantage or causes a third person to obtain it, thereby causing loss to the principal (Article 355, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act): 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 violation of an occupational duty (Article 356 of the Criminal Act): 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 the breach of duty is minor

▲ Genuine remorse

▲ No prior criminal punishment

The Namyangju law office first pointed out that the complainant’s assertion was inaccurate.

The complainant asserts that, of the 100 million won in transaction funds paid to the client, he did not receive the expenditure records for 60 million won, and that the client therefore embezzled that money.

However, examining the client’s bank transaction statement, which records the funds exchanged between the complainant and the client for the transaction, shows that this is not true.

The Daeryun Namyangju law office submitted that bank transaction statement as evidence and rebutted the complainant’s assertion.

The Namyangju law office revealed that the client and the complainant were relatives.

The client and the complainant are cousins. Knowing well that the complainant’s financial circumstances were not comfortable, the client would sometimes cover urgently needed funds with his own cash first.

The Namyangju law office organized and submitted as evidence the records of the cash payments and receipts for the funds in this case.

Based on his blood relationship with the complainant, the client carried out the transaction work, going so far as to advance his own personal cash in urgent situations to ensure that the work proceeded smoothly.

The Namyangju law office argued that, in light of the client’s conduct, it was difficult to find that intent with respect to occupational embezzlement was established.