Breach of Trust Lawyer
Breach of Trust Lawyer | Challenging the elements before they become a conviction
Breach of trust (배임죄) punishes a person who, while handling another's affairs, breaches that duty for their own or a third party's benefit and thereby causes the principal loss or obtains gain (Criminal Act Article 355(2)). Unlike theft or fraud, this crime is built almost entirely on interpretation — what counted as "the affair," what counted as a "breach," and whether the principal actually suffered a loss. Because these elements are contested rather than obvious, a large share of breach of trust cases turn on documentary and accounting evidence rather than eyewitness testimony. When the alleged loss is large, the case may also be prosecuted under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, which raises the sentencing range significantly (특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조).
Breach of Trust | What counts as breach of trust under the Criminal Act
Breach of trust is not one single act — the Criminal Act separates the basic offense from aggravated forms depending on who the defendant is and what position they held. Understanding which provision applies changes both the sentencing range and the defense strategy.
A person who, while administering another's affairs based on a fiduciary relationship (e.g., agent, director, partner), acts against that duty for personal or third-party gain and thereby causes property loss to the principal. This is the core provision and applies to a wide range of relationships — employment, partnership, agency, and corporate directorship.
Where the breach of trust occurs in the course of the defendant's occupation or profession — most commonly a company director, executive, or employee handling company assets — the statutory penalty is heavier than the basic offense. Most corporate breach of trust prosecutions are charged under this provision.
This covers the separate act of a person handling another's affairs who receives, demands, or promises to receive an improper benefit in connection with that duty. It is often charged alongside occupational breach of trust when money or favors changed hands between the defendant and a third party.
The prosecution must first show the defendant held a position of trust to manage or protect someone else's property interests — not just any contractual relationship. Courts have narrowed this element over time, and whether a given business relationship qualifies is frequently the first line of defense.
This is judged against the defendant's actual authority and the norms of the specific relationship — a decision that turned out badly is not automatically a breach. Business judgment made in good faith with reasonable grounds is a central defense theme here.
The prosecution must show the principal suffered an actual property loss or a concrete risk of loss, and that the defendant or a third party obtained a corresponding gain. Courts have accepted that a realistic risk of loss can satisfy this element even without final, realized damage, which is a frequently contested point.
Where these elements often break down
Because breach of trust requires proving a state of mind (intent to breach duty for gain) alongside a technical assessment of loss, many cases collapse or are reduced at the stage of showing the defendant's decision was a reasonable business judgment, or that the alleged loss was speculative rather than concrete. These are exactly the points a defense should focus on from the investigation stage, before the prosecutor's narrative is set.
Breach of Trust | Attacking the prosecution's theory element by element
Because breach of trust is defined by abstract elements rather than a concrete act like taking property, defense strategy usually focuses on disputing one or more of these elements rather than denying the underlying facts entirely.
Was there really a fiduciary relationship?
The prosecution must show the defendant was entrusted with managing or protecting the principal's property interests, not merely bound by an ordinary contract. Simple buyer-seller or debtor-creditor relationships generally do not qualify, and drawing this line is often the first and most effective defense argument.
Business judgment versus breach of duty
A decision that later turns out to cause a loss is not automatically a breach of duty. If the defendant acted within their authority, based on reasonable information available at the time, and for a legitimate business purpose, courts have recognized this as a defense even where the outcome was financially harmful.
Intent to gain versus ordinary business risk
The statute requires that the breach be committed for the defendant's own benefit or a third party's benefit (Criminal Act Art. 355(2)). Where the defendant's conduct was aimed at benefiting the company itself — even if executed poorly — this cuts against the required intent element.
Breach of Trust | How the amount and nature of the loss is calculated
The size and certainty of the alleged loss drive both the applicable statute and the sentencing range, so this is frequently the most fought-over technical issue in the case.
Concrete loss versus abstract risk
Courts have held that a concrete risk of loss to the principal's property can be enough to satisfy the loss element, even if no money actually left the company's accounts. Defense counsel often argues the alleged risk was too speculative or contingent to count, particularly where the transaction was later reversed or never executed.
Netting and valuation disputes
Where the defendant argues that the company also received some benefit from the transaction (e.g., a related-party loan later repaid, or collateral provided), how that benefit is valued against the alleged loss becomes a key accounting dispute. Financial and appraisal evidence is central here, not just testimony.
Who is the "principal" that suffered the loss?
In corporate cases, disputes often arise over whether the loss was suffered by the company itself, by a subsidiary, or by individual shareholders — and only a loss to the company itself typically supports a breach of trust charge against a director. This distinction matters especially in group affiliate transactions.
Breach of Trust | When the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes applies
Once the amount of loss claimed by the prosecution crosses certain thresholds, the case is no longer charged under the Criminal Act alone — it moves to a special statute with a substantially higher sentencing floor.
Why the loss figure is the real battlefield
Because the statute's thresholds are fixed at specific won amounts, moving the calculated loss from just above to just below a threshold can change the case from one type of proceeding to an entirely different sentencing range. This is why forensic accounting and expert valuation evidence often matter more than witness credibility in these cases.
Aggregation of multiple transactions
Prosecutors sometimes aggregate the loss from several separate transactions to reach the higher statutory threshold. Whether those transactions can properly be treated as a single continuing offense, or must be assessed separately, is a frequent point of dispute that affects which law applies.
Bail and pretrial detention considerations
Cases charged under the aggravated statute are treated more seriously at the investigation and indictment stage, which can affect the likelihood of pretrial detention. Early engagement with the prosecutor's office to present financial records and expert opinions on loss valuation can be part of shaping how the case proceeds from the outset.
⚠ Loss amount changes the applicable law and sentencing floor
Under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조), if the amount of profit gained through breach of trust is KRW 500 million or more, the minimum sentence is raised well above the ordinary Criminal Act penalty, and at KRW 5 billion or more the penalty increases further. Because the applicable sentencing range depends directly on how the loss is calculated, disputing the loss amount is often as important as disputing guilt itself.
Breach of Trust | From investigation to trial
Before the first police or prosecutor interview, counsel reviews the underlying contracts, corporate records, and financial statements to identify which elements of the offense are actually in dispute.
Preparing for police questioning, and where appropriate, submitting written opinions on the fiduciary relationship, business judgment, or loss valuation before an indictment decision is made.
If the case is at risk of indictment under the Act on Aggravated Punishment due to a high loss figure, counsel may submit expert valuation materials aimed at recalculating the loss amount before the charge is finalized.
At trial, defense typically focuses on cross-examining financial evidence, challenging the prosecution's loss calculation, and presenting the business context behind the disputed decision.
Where liability is difficult to avoid entirely, counsel may focus on factors such as restitution, absence of personal gain, or the defendant's role relative to co-defendants to argue for a reduced sentence within the applicable range.
Breach of Trust | How defense fees are typically structured
Set based on the stage of the case (investigation-only versus indictment and trial), the complexity of the financial evidence, and whether the case is charged under the aggravated statute. Discussed and agreed in the initial consultation.
If used, tied to a clearly defined and lawful outcome (e.g., non-indictment, reduced charge, or a specific sentencing result), and agreed in a written fee agreement in advance rather than framed as a guarantee of outcome.
Breach of trust cases often require forensic accounting or business valuation opinions to dispute the alleged loss amount; these expert fees are typically billed separately from the legal retainer.
Court filing fees, document certification costs, and expenses for obtaining corporate or financial records are billed as incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Breach of Trust | Self-Check Before Your Consultation
1️⃣ Was there a genuine fiduciary relationship?
- Did you hold a position (director, agent, partner, employee) entrusted with managing the other party's property or interests?
- Was the relationship based on a simple contract rather than a duty to manage someone else's affairs?
- Can you show the scope of authority you were actually given at the time?
2️⃣ Was the decision within reasonable business judgment?
- Did you have a legitimate business reason for the decision at the time it was made?
- Was the decision based on information or advice reasonably available then, not hindsight?
- Were there internal approvals, board minutes, or advisor opinions supporting the decision?
3️⃣ Is the alleged loss actually concrete?
- Did the company or principal actually lose money, or is the claim based on a hypothetical risk?
- Was any benefit received by the principal in the same transaction (e.g., repayment, collateral, offsetting gain)?
- Has the alleged loss amount been calculated by an independent expert, or only asserted by the complainant?
4️⃣ Could the Act on Aggravated Punishment apply to you?
- Does the alleged gain or loss approach or exceed KRW 500 million or KRW 5 billion?
- Are multiple transactions being combined by the prosecution to reach a higher threshold?
- Have you gathered financial records that could support a lower loss calculation?
