Conviction Finalized for Embezzlement and Breach of Trust
Including Misuse of Appearance Fees and Corporate Credit Cards
Sister-in-law's Sentence Finalized: 1 Year in Prison, Suspended for 2 Years
Entertainment Agency Funds Used for Personal Attorney's Fees
And Real Estate-related Expenses
The Supreme Court has finalized the lower court ruling that sentenced broadcaster Park Soo-hong's older brother, who was indicted on charges of embezzling Park's appearance fees and corporate funds, to three years and six months in prison. The suspended prison sentence imposed on his sister-in-law was also upheld as is.
On the 26th, the First Division of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Shin Sook-hee, announced that it had rejected the appeals filed by Park's older brother and sister-in-law, who were indicted on charges including embezzlement and breach of trust in the course of business under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, thereby finalizing the lower court's decision.
Park's older brother, while operating two entertainment management corporations, was charged with siphoning off company funds by using corporate credit cards for personal purposes and arbitrarily transferring corporate funds to cover his personal attorney's fees and real estate-related expenses. He was also charged with misappropriating funds by registering a person who did not actually work for the company as an employee and receiving salary payments in that person's name.
In the first trial, the court sentenced the older brother to two years in prison and acquitted the sister-in-law. However, in the second trial, the court found him guilty of some counts of breach of trust in the course of business, including the private use of corporate credit cards, increased his sentence to three years and six months in prison, and sentenced the sister-in-law to one year in prison, suspended for two years.
The Supreme Court held that there was no misunderstanding of the law or insufficiency in the examination of facts in the lower court's decision. As for the appeal ground in which the older brother argued that the sentence was too heavy, the Court found that in a case where a sentence of up to 10 years in prison may be imposed, a mere assertion that the sentence is excessive cannot constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.
The Court also rejected the sister-in-law's arguments that she was not involved in the operation of the corporations and that there was insufficient evidence of her using the corporate credit card, stating that the lower court's guilty verdict did not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and did not involve any misunderstanding of the legal principles governing breach of trust in the course of business.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
