[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A lawyer who was prosecuted for embezzling money received in the course of business from a company he represented in a civil lawsuit was sentenced to a fine in the first trial.
According to the legal community on the 5th, Judge Heo Jeong-in of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 17 sentenced lawyer A (68, male), who was indicted on charges of embezzlement in the course of business, to a fine of 10 million won recently.
Previously, lawyer A was prosecuted on charges of embezzling part of the money he received under the pretext of business from company B, which he represented in a civil lawsuit in 2019, and kept in his bank account.
Company B, dissatisfied with the partial loss in the first trial of a civil lawsuit against another company since 2018, which ordered the payment of '75 million won and delayed damages,' appealed, and to prevent provisional execution, they requested lawyer A to make a deposit (entrusting money, etc. to the court).
According to the prosecution, lawyer A received 75 million won under such business pretext, kept it in his bank account, and even after company B gave up the civil lawsuit appeal and asked for the money back, he refused and used 10.6 million won for personal purposes, including transferring 5 million won to his wife as living expenses.
Lawyer A’s side argued during the criminal trial that "Company B owed the defendant 200 million won" and "when receiving the 75 million won, there was no condition that 'the civil lawsuit ends and the defendant cannot offset when recovering the deposit.'"
The first trial court did not accept these claims and found him 'guilty.' It stated, "Even if the purpose and necessity of the entrusted money disappeared due to the end of the civil lawsuit, the defendant has the obligation to return the money received as is," and "The act of unilaterally offsetting the money constitutes embezzlement."
Judge Heo stated, "It is acknowledged that the defendant holds a claim worth 200 million won against company B. However, there is no evidence to consider that a separate special agreement was made allowing offset when the purpose or use of the money received as a deposit disappears," and "If the deposit received under the name of stay of execution had been immediately offset, it would have constituted embezzlement with the intent to illegally gain by using or disposing of another person's property as one's own, but the defendant's claim that offset after the external circumstances caused the purpose or use to disappear negates embezzlement is not valid," he pointed out.
Furthermore, "Company B wants the defendant to be punished. However, considering the sentencing factors such as the defendant’s attempt to collect the claim from company B for a considerable period but failing, which led to this crime," he added.
Lawyer A appealed the first trial verdict.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
