Embezzlement Attorney | Assisting a Client Charged with Occupational Embezzlement and Breach of Trust, Non-Indictment

We closely examined the circumstances of the client who had been charged with occupational embezzlement and breach of trust.

The client had worked in the insurance industry for more than 10 years and served as a middle manager in charge of sales management and customer contract management at an insurance company.

Then one day, the client was criminally charged by the company with 🔗embezzlement and breach of trust.

The company stated as its reason for the complaint that the client had personally misused company property and had caused loss to the company in connection with a particular contract.

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

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

•A person who, while handling another's affairs, obtains a pecuniary benefit or causes a third party to obtain it through an act in breach of his or her duty, causing loss to the principal (Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act): imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won

•A person who commits an offense under Article 355 in breach 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

Breach of trust refers to an act in which a person handling another's affairs obtains a pecuniary benefit or causes a third party to obtain it through an act in breach of his or her duty, causing loss.

Occupational breach of trust may be punished under the Criminal Act by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won. Aggravated punishment is also possible depending on the amount of the pecuniary benefit obtained through the breach of trust.

The embezzlement attorney set out to rebut the charge of misuse of insurance proceeds alleged by the company.

The attorney argued that the insurance proceeds paid to the customer had been paid exactly as recorded in the electronic records, and that there were no circumstances indicating that the money had been deposited into the client's account.

The attorney also emphasized that the payment of incentives followed the company's internal guidelines and procedures and could not be arbitrarily manipulated by the client.

The attorney set out to rebut the company's claim that the client had caused loss to the company by providing preferential treatment to a particular customer.

At the client's company, adjustments to discount rates or benefits can be made to a certain degree within the scope set by internal regulations.

The client also made the adjustment within the scope permitted by internal regulations and did not arbitrarily grant preferential treatment.

The attorney emphasized that the preferential treatment alleged by the company was merely part of an internal marketing strategy intended to proceed with customer-tailored planning, and that treating it as breach of trust was unjustified.