Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes Act (embezzlement)

Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

A person who, having custody of another's property, embezzles it or refuses to return it is punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine not exceeding 15 million Korean won. If the embezzled amount is 500 million Korean won or more, the punishment is aggravated to imprisonment for at least 3 years.

Suspension of indictment

If the police investigate a suspect and determine that there is suspicion, they refer the case to the prosecution.

After receiving the referred case, the prosecutor conducts supplemental investigation and decides whether to indict. Among the types of non-indictment decisions, there is 'suspension of indictment'.

'Suspension of indictment' is a decision not to bring a charge when the facts of the accusation are recognized but, considering the suspect's age, character, intelligence, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, punishment is deemed unnecessary.

When a decision to suspend indictment is made, the criminal procedure against the suspect is terminated and no criminal record remains, making it a very favorable decision for the suspect.

Recently, Lawyer Joo Youngjae obtained a suspension of indictment in a case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), which I will introduce.

Facts

The client worked as a personal trainer and manager at a fitness center. He personally received and kept some of the membership fees paid for personal training (PT), using part for the center's operating expenses and refunding part to members, managing funds opaquely. He was reported by the owner for embezzling over 600 million Korean won.

The client acknowledged that he did not deposit some of the PT fees into the business account, but thought the amount claimed by the complainant was outrageously high. He urgently sought help from Lawyer Joo Youngjae.

Lawyer Joo Youngjae's assistance

Lawyer Joo Youngjae clarified that most of the money deposited into the client's account, as shown in the financial transaction records submitted by the complainant, was not PT fees but personal monetary transactions. He also showed that most of the deposited PT fees were actually used for the business's operating expenses, significantly reducing the amount of the embezzlement charge.

Furthermore, regarding the amounts the client personally used, he argued that in the partnership relationship with the complainant, these were amounts requiring settlement, and demanded further proof from the complainant.

Ultimately, under the burden of proving the suspicion and the ongoing civil lawsuit, the complainant accepted the client's settlement request and settled for an amount much smaller than the originally claimed amount. Lawyer Joo Youngjae submitted the complainant's statement of non-punishment to the prosecution.

Investigating agency's decision

Ultimately, reflecting the difficulty of proving the suspicion and the complainant's intention not to punish, the prosecutor issued a decision to suspend indictment. The client was completely free from civil and criminal liability.