60-Year-Old Impersonating Deceased Brother to Embezzle 900 Million Won in Deposits Sentenced to Prison

Four Withdrawals from Financial Institutions Two Days After Death
"Lifetime Gift" Claim... Court Rules "No Right to Claim Deposit"

A man in his 60s who impersonated his deceased brother and forged deposit claim forms in the deceased's name to withdraw and embezzle a large sum of 900 million KRW from financial institutions was sentenced to prison.

The Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 2 (Chief Judge Kim Seong-rae) sentenced A (61), who was indicted on charges of fraud and forgery of private documents under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, to two years in prison, Yonhap News reported on the 28th.

On April 13, 2019, after his brother B passed away, A visited a financial institution two days later. Using B’s seal, he forged deposit claim forms in B’s name to deceive the financial institution and withdrew 90 million KRW from the account. A was prosecuted for embezzling a total of approximately 899 million KRW from financial institutions over four transactions in four days using this method.

During the trial, A’s side denied the charges, claiming that "B gifted the deposit to A during his lifetime and agreed to A withdrawing and using it." In fact, B had asked his only heir, his child, to renounce inheritance during his lifetime, and since A could not have known the password to B’s deposit account unless B had directly informed him, the court found it difficult to easily dismiss A’s defense.

However, even if B had agreed to gift the deposit claim to A or consented to A’s withdrawal of the deposit during his lifetime, since the gift contract was not fulfilled and B died, A did not have the legal status to immediately exercise the deposit claim in the deceased’s name. Under civil law, the death of the deceased terminates the agency relationship and revokes the power of attorney, so A could not be considered to have had the authority to prepare and exercise deposit claim forms after B’s death. This was also a basis for the guilty verdict. Furthermore, the court noted that if the victim financial institutions had known of the deceased’s death, they would not have paid the deposit to A, who was not a legal heir, and since A was aware of this, he acted as if the deceased himself was requesting the withdrawal to obtain the money.

The first trial court pointed out, "Considering the method of the crime and the amount of damage, the defendant’s guilt is serious, yet no agreement with the victims was reached, nor were there any sincere efforts to compensate for the damage." It added, "However, since the defendant admitted the facts of the crime itself and generally showed remorse, and there were some mitigating circumstances in the crime’s circumstances, as well as the fact that 600 million KRW was actually used for the deceased’s tax payments and other purposes, the sentence was set somewhat below the recommended range (3 to 6 years in prison) according to sentencing guidelines," explaining the reasoning behind the sentence.