법무법인 프런티어
Embezzlement Lawyer
Embezzlement Lawyer | Building a defense around intent and the entrusted relationship
Embezzlement is committed when a person who holds another's property under a relationship of trust converts that property for their own use or refuses to return it (형법 제355조 제1항). Because the crime requires proof of a fiduciary relationship over specific property and a subjective intent to unlawfully acquire it, many accusations that look clear-cut on the surface collapse once these elements are examined closely. Whether the case is prosecuted as simple embezzlement, occupational embezzlement, or under the aggravated punishment statute changes both the potential sentence and the trial strategy.
Embezzlement | What Prosecutors Must Prove
Embezzlement is not simply 'spending money that belonged to someone else.' The prosecution must establish several distinct elements, and a defense can target any one of them.
The defendant must have held the property under a relationship where they were entrusted to keep, manage, or hold it for someone else (형법 제355조 제1항). This includes contractual custody, agency, or a corporate officer's duty over company funds. If no such entrustment existed, the charge cannot stand as embezzlement, though it may raise other issues.
The object must be someone else's property or money, not the defendant's own asset that they were free to use. Disputes often arise over commingled funds, advance payments, or money transferred for a specific purpose, where whether ownership passed is itself contested.
The defendant must have used the property for a purpose outside the entrustment, or refused to return it when demanded, in a way that shows an intent to treat it as their own (형법 제355조 제1항). A temporary, disclosed, or authorized use of the funds — later repaid — is frequently argued not to meet this standard.
Courts require proof that the defendant intended to deal with the property as if it were their own, in violation of the purpose of the entrustment. Where the defendant believed in good faith that the use was authorized, or intended and was able to repay it, this subjective intent becomes the central battleground.
When the embezzlement is committed by taking advantage of one's occupational duties — such as an accountant, executive, or employee handling company funds — the offense is punished more heavily (형법 제356조). This is the most common form seen in corporate and workplace-related accusations.
Repayment Does Not Erase the Charge
A common misunderstanding is that repaying the money before or during the investigation makes the case disappear. Repayment can support an argument that there was no intent to unlawfully acquire the property, and it is heavily weighed in sentencing, but it does not automatically extinguish criminal liability once the elements are otherwise met.
Embezzlement | Attacking the Intent to Unlawfully Acquire (불법영득의사)
In most embezzlement defenses, the fight is not over whether money moved, but over what the defendant intended when it moved.
Temporary Use With Intent to Repay
If the defendant used entrusted funds temporarily but always intended and had the ability to return them, courts may find this insufficient to establish intent to unlawfully acquire, depending on the surrounding circumstances such as concealment and the length of the delay. Evidence of the defendant's financial capacity and any partial repayments made before detection is central here.
Reasonable Belief in Authorization
Where the defendant genuinely believed the use of funds was within their authority — for example, a common but undocumented company practice, or a verbal approval from a superior — this can negate the subjective intent element even if the act was objectively outside the formal scope of entrustment.
Disclosure vs. Concealment
Whether the defendant recorded the transaction, disclosed it to relevant parties, or actively concealed it from accounting records or co-owners is frequently cited by courts as circumstantial evidence bearing on intent. A defense built on transparency of the transaction is often stronger than one built solely on eventual repayment.
Embezzlement | Disputing Whether a Fiduciary Custody Relationship Existed
Embezzlement can only occur over property the defendant held on behalf of someone else. If that entrustment relationship is unclear, the charge itself may be misconceived.
Was the Money Actually Entrusted, or Was It a Loan/Investment?
Many disputes between business partners or investors are framed as embezzlement when the underlying transaction was a loan, an investment with shared risk, or a joint venture without a clear custodial duty. If the funds were transferred as the defendant's own to use freely, the custody element required under 형법 제355조 제1항 may not be satisfied.
Commingled or Fungible Funds
When money is deposited into a shared or personal account rather than held separately, courts examine whether the defendant still owed a specific duty to preserve identifiable funds, or whether the arrangement effectively transferred ownership subject only to a debt obligation, which points toward a civil dispute rather than embezzlement.
Corporate Officer's Duty Over Company Assets
For executives and employees, the scope of authorized use of company funds — approved by internal policy, board resolution, or established practice — defines the boundary of lawful use. Disputes often center on whether an expense was a legitimate, if aggressive, business decision or an unauthorized diversion of company property.
Embezzlement | Embezzlement vs. Breach of Trust (배임죄)
Prosecutors sometimes charge embezzlement when the facts more closely resemble breach of trust, or vice versa. The distinction affects both the elements to be proven and the available defenses.
Object of the Offense
Embezzlement requires that the defendant held specific property or money belonging to another (형법 제355조 제1항). Breach of trust, by contrast, applies to a person who, in the course of handling another's affairs, causes property damage through an act that betrays that duty, and does not require custody of a specific item of property (형법 제355조 제2항).
Why the Distinction Matters for Defense
If the prosecution charges embezzlement but the facts show the defendant never held specific entrusted property — for instance, they merely had decision-making authority that was misused — a defense can argue the charge should instead be breach of trust or no crime at all, which can affect both classification and, in aggravated cases, the sentencing range under the special statute discussed below.
Overlapping Fact Patterns in Corporate Cases
In practice, cases involving executives diverting company opportunities, self-dealing transactions, or unauthorized loans to related parties frequently raise both theories simultaneously, and prosecutors may charge in the alternative. Careful analysis of exactly what property was held and how it was disposed of is necessary to determine which theory actually fits the facts.
Embezzlement | When the Aggravated Punishment Statute Applies
The amount embezzled can move a case from an ordinary criminal court into a much harsher sentencing framework.
How the Amount Is Calculated
The relevant amount is generally the value of the property embezzled, not necessarily the total revenue or transaction volume involved. Disputing the calculation method, offsetting amounts that were legitimately used or already repaid, and separating unrelated transactions can directly affect which sentencing tier applies.
Aggregation of Multiple Acts
Where multiple instances of embezzlement are alleged over time, courts consider whether they should be aggregated as a single continuing offense or treated separately, which affects whether the combined amount crosses the 500 million won or 5 billion won thresholds under 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조.
Why Early Legal Advice Matters at This Stage
Because the aggravated punishment statute removes much of the sentencing discretion available under the ordinary Criminal Act, engaging a lawyer early — from the investigation stage — to review the amount calculation and the underlying transactions can materially affect which statute ultimately applies to the case.
⚠ Amount Thresholds Change the Sentencing Range
Under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조), where the amount of property gained through occupational embezzlement or breach of trust is 500 million won or more, the minimum sentence increases substantially, and where it reaches 5 billion won or more, the statute mandates an even higher minimum sentence. This makes accurately calculating the actual amount at issue one of the most consequential points in the case.
Embezzlement | From Investigation to Trial
The lawyer reviews the accusation, financial records, contracts, and communications to identify exactly what property was entrusted, how it was used, and whether the intent element can realistically be proven.
The client is prepared for questioning, and a written statement or opinion may be submitted to the investigating agency to clarify the custody relationship, the purpose of the funds, and any repayment already made.
Depending on the evidence, the lawyer may seek a non-prosecution decision, negotiate the classification of the charge (embezzlement vs. breach of trust), or address whether the aggravated punishment statute's amount thresholds are properly calculated.
If indicted, the defense focuses on the specific elements most vulnerable in the case — typically intent, the custody relationship, or the calculated amount — supported by financial expert opinions where necessary.
Where liability is difficult to avoid entirely, the strategy shifts to mitigating factors such as repayment, absence of prior record, and cooperation, which can affect whether a suspended sentence is possible within the applicable statute.
Embezzlement | How Fees Are Structured
Typically set based on the stage of the case (police investigation, prosecution, trial) and the complexity of the financial records that must be reviewed, rather than a fixed standard amount.
May be structured around the outcome achieved — such as a non-prosecution decision, a reduced charge, or a suspended sentence — and is agreed upon in advance rather than tied to any promised result.
Cases involving large or complex financial records may require a forensic accountant's review to recalculate the disputed amount, which is billed separately from the legal retainer.
Covers items such as document copying, transcript costs, and travel for court appearances outside the firm's usual jurisdiction.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Embezzlement | Self-Check Before Your Consultation
1️⃣ Custody Relationship Check
- Did you actually hold or manage the money/property on behalf of someone else, or was it transferred to you as your own asset?
- Is there a written contract, company policy, or agreement describing your authority over the funds?
- Was the money kept separately, or commingled with your own personal or business funds?
2️⃣ Intent Check
- Did you disclose the use of the funds to the owner, your employer, or in company records at the time?
- Did you have a genuine, documented intent and ability to repay or return the property?
- Have you already repaid part or all of the disputed amount, and can you prove when and how?
3️⃣ Charge Classification Check
- Does the accusation describe you holding specific property, or merely having authority over a decision (which may point to breach of trust instead)?
- Has the prosecution specified an exact amount, and do you agree with how that amount was calculated?
- Could unrelated transactions have been aggregated together to inflate the total amount?
4️⃣ Aggravated Punishment Exposure Check
- Does the total disputed amount approach or exceed 500 million won or 5 billion won?
- Were the alleged acts committed on a single occasion or over multiple incidents that might be aggregated?
- Have you gathered financial records, bank statements, and contracts before your first interview with investigators?
Frequently Asked Questions
Official References
개인정보처리방침
제 1 조 수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법
제 2 조 개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간
제 3 조 개인정보의 제3자 제공
제 4 조 개인정보 처리업무의 위탁
제 5 조 정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법
제 6 조 개인정보의 파기
제 7 조 의견수렴 및 불만처리
제 8 조 개인정보 처리방침의 변경
제 9 조 개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치
제 1 조 (수집하는 개인정보의 항목, 목적, 방법)
① 게시판 글 작성 시 필수 항목에 대한 수집목적은 ‘별도의 구체적 상담을 위하여’이며 수집항목은 ‘이름, 이메일, 연락처’입니다.
② 전항 외에 고객의 서비스 이용 과정이나 요청 사항 처리 과정에서 ‘IP주소, 접속로그, 단말기 및 환경정보, 서비스 이용기록, 쿠키’와 같은 정보들이 자동으로 수집 및 저장될 수 있으며, 이 때의 수집목적은 ‘사용자 홈페이지 이용, 사이트 이용에 대한 문의 민원 등 고객 고충 처리’입니다.
③ 사무소는 ‘홈페이지 고객 문의/고충 처리 시 전화 또는 인터넷을 통한 상담’과 같은 방법으로 개인정보를 수집합니다
제 2 조 (개인정보의 처리 및 보유기간)
관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 보존하여야 하는 의무가 있는 경우가 아닌 한, 정보주체의 개인정보는 원칙적으로 해당 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성될 때까지 보유 및 이용되며, 그 목적이 달성되면 지체 없이 파기됩니다.
제 3 조 (개인정보의 제3자 제공)
사무소는 정보주체의 개인정보를 본 처리방침에서 명시한 목적에 한해서만 처리하며 정보주체의 사전동의가 있는 경우 또는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령의 규정에 의거한 경우에만 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공합니다. 사무소는 현재 개인정보를 제3자에게 제공하지 않고 있습니다.
제 4 조 (개인정보 처리업무의 위탁)
사무소는 현재 귀하의 개인정보 보호를 위해 귀하의 개인정보를 직접 취급 관리하고 있습니다. 단, 향후 보다 전문적인 서비스를 제공하기 위하여 제3의 전문기관에 귀하의 정보를 위탁할 필요가 있다고 판단되는 경우, 귀하의 사전 동의 하에 개인정보에 대한 취급을 위탁할 수 있습니다.
제 5 조 (정보주체의 권리·의무 및 그 행사방법)
① 정보주체는 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 사무소에 대해 개인정보의 열람, 정정 및 삭제, 처리정지 요구 등 개인정보 보호 관련 권리를 행사할 수 있습니다.
② 제1항에 따른 권리행사는 정보주체의 법정대리인이나 위임을 받은 사람을 통해서도 할 수 있습니다. 다만, 이 경우에는 개인정보보호법 시행규칙에 따른 위임장을 사무소에 제출하여야 합니다.
③ 사무소는 정보주체의 권리행사에 대하여 개인정보보호법 등 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 지체 없이 조치하겠습니다.
제 6 조 (개인정보의 파기)
① 사무소는 원칙적으로 개인정보의 처리목적이 달성된 경우 등 그 개인정보가 불필요하게 되었을 때에는 지체 없이 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
② 사무소가 관계법령의 규정에 따라 개인정보를 파기하지 아니하고 보존하여야 하는 경우에는 해당 개인정보 또는 개인정보파일을 다른 개인정보와 분리해서 저장·관리 합니다.
③ 사무소는 파기사유가 발생한 개인정보를 선정하여 개인정보 보호책임자의 승인을 받아 해당 개인정보를 파기합니다.
④ 사무소는 파기하여야 할 개인정보가 전자적 파일 형태인 경우 복원이 불가능한 방법으로 영구 삭제하며, 이외의 기록물, 인쇄물, 서면, 그 밖의 기록매체인 경우 파쇄 또는 소각합니다.
제 7 조 (의견수렴 및 불만처리)
정보주체는 개인정보 보호 관련 문의, 불만처리, 피해구제 등에 관한 사항을 아래 개인정보 보호책임자 또는 담당부서에 문의하실 수 있습니다. 사무소는 정보주체의 문의에 대하여 신속하고 충분한 답변을 드릴 것입니다.
개인정보 보호 책임자 : 변호사
연락처 : 02.
제 8 조 (개인정보 처리방침의 변경)
사무소의 개인정보 처리방침은 관련 법령, 지침 및 사무소 내부규정에 따라 변경될 수 있으며, 개인정보 처리방침이 변경되는 경우 관련 법령이 정하는 방법에 따라 공개합니다.
제 9 조 (개인정보의 안전성 확보 조치)
사무소는 개인정보의 안전성 확보를 위해 다음과 같은 조치를 취하고 있습니다.
관리적 조치 : 내부관리계획의 수립 및 시행, 구성원에 대한 정기적인 개인정보 보호교육 등
기술적 조치 : 개인정보처리시스템 등의 접근권한 관리, 접근통제시스템 설치, 고유식별정보 등의 암호화, 보안프로그램의 설치 등
물리적 조치 : 전산실, 자료보관실 등 개인정보 보관장소에 대한 접근통제