Economic & Property Crimes

Fraud (Criminal Act art. 347) requires deception that induces a mistaken disposition of property. The crux is deceptive intent at the time of receipt — mere failure to repay is not fraud; courts examine whether you then had the will and means to perform. The December 2025 amendment raised the range to up to 20 years' imprisonment or a KRW 50 million fine, with aggravation under the Specific Economic Crimes Act above KRW 500 million in gains.

Reconstruct the transaction chronologically first: contracts, loan notes, transfer records, and messages that show the flow of funds and what was promised, plus where the money went. Because the issue is deception and intent at the time of receipt, rebuilding your finances and repayment plan as of that moment forms the backbone of the defense. Be careful with direct contact with the complainant, and organize the issues with counsel before appearing.

Both betray a relationship of trust, but the object differs: embezzlement (art. 355(1)) is appropriating another's specific property in your custody; breach of trust (art. 355(2)) is violating a duty in handling another's affairs to gain a benefit and cause loss. Occupational capacity aggravates the range (art. 356), and the Specific Economic Crimes Act applies above KRW 500 million. The boundary is often itself contested.

No. Embezzlement requires intent of unlawful appropriation — treating company funds as your own. Properly processed advances, approved business expenses, and temporary use premised on return are assessed differently. The recurring battleground is an executive's use of corporate funds: whether procedures like board resolutions were followed, whether the use served corporate interests, and how it was booked. Organize the supporting records early.

Investment loss alone is not a crime. Fraud arises when the business, its returns, or the use of funds was falsely described at the time of investment, or the funds were never intended for the agreed purpose; breach of trust arises from disposing of managed funds contrary to duty. The two axes are whether the pitch was true and whether funds were used as agreed — so offering materials, project records, and disbursement histories are the key evidence.

Three main types: insider trading on material nonpublic information, market manipulation, and unfair trading such as false statements or spreading rumors — punishable under art. 443 of the Capital Markets Act by a minimum of one year's imprisonment, aggravated by the size of gains. Unlicensed business and disclosure violations are also criminal. Regulatory review by the FSS or the exchange usually precedes the criminal case, so statements and submissions at that stage effectively set its course.

Ask to see the warrant and record how the allegation, items, and premises are specified. You may object on the spot to seizure beyond the warrant's scope, and counsel has a right to attend (arts. 121, 219) — call your attorney the moment execution begins. Demand the inventory of seized items, remember that voluntary submissions are yours to limit, and avoid improvised statements at the scene.

Investigators obtain transaction records from financial institutions under a court-issued warrant for account tracing; under the Real Name Financial Transactions Act, records cannot in principle be provided without one, and the accounts and period must be specified. Institutions normally notify the account holder, but notice can be deferred — the full flow of funds may already be under review. Prepare explanations and supporting records for transfers that need accounting.

It can. Restitution is a significant mitigating factor under the sentencing guidelines, and combined with the victim's wish not to punish it can also affect charging decisions. But repayment does not erase the offense — liability and sentencing are separate — and timing matters: early voluntary restitution reads as more genuine than payment on the eve of judgment. If resources are limited, structure partial payment, deposit, and settlement with counsel.

Because economic cases are decided on documents. Investigators secure account flows, books, and contracts first, then use interviews to confirm their reading — and your best chance to supply context is early. A first statement that contradicts the records turns every later explanation into an excuse; conversely, an early written account with exhibits can reframe the investigation. Preserve emails, ledgers, and approval records now.