White-Collar & Corporate Crimes

Most frequent are occupational embezzlement and breach of trust (art. 356) — corporate fund use, affiliate support, self-dealing — followed by wage-related cases, fraud complaints arising from investment or trade relationships, tax matters, and, for industrial employers, Serious Accidents Punishment Act cases. The common thread: civil disputes and management decisions arriving dressed as criminal complaints. Maintaining records of board resolutions and internal approvals is the surest preparation.

A public official who receives money or benefits in connection with duties commits bribery (art. 129); the giver commits offering a bribe (art. 133). The battleground is duty-relatedness and quid pro quo — construed broadly by the courts, so a social-courtesy defense rarely holds. Amounts of KRW 30 million or more trigger heavy aggravation, and KRW 100 million or more can mean life or a minimum of ten years. In the private sector, art. 357 and the Improper Solicitation Act apply instead.

Breach of trust (art. 355(2)) requires disloyal conduct causing property damage to the principal. Trust-based bribery (art. 357) punishes receiving money upon an improper solicitation in that position — no corporate loss required; it is the private-sector counterpart of bribery, and the giver is punished too. A purchasing manager's kickback from a supplier is the classic case, and the two offenses can be charged together when loss also results.

Yes. Cartel conduct is the paradigm: the Fair Trade Act makes it a criminal offense for both the company and the individuals involved. Prosecution generally requires a KFTC referral (exclusive complaint system), so cases run KFTC investigation, deliberation, referral, then prosecutors. Conduct at the KFTC stage — scope of production, statements, and above all the leniency decision, whose value turns on timing and order — effectively determines the criminal exposure.

The responsible managing officer — the person with ultimate authority over the business. Where a fatal industrial accident occurs and the duty to establish a safety-and-health system was breached, that officer faces a minimum of one year's imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 1 billion (art. 6), with a separate corporate fine. Unlike the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it targets top management directly; the defense centers on proof that the system was genuinely built and run — budgets, staffing, risk assessments, inspection records.

Call counsel immediately to attend, and meanwhile verify and record how the warrant specifies the allegation, items, and premises. Route all interaction through one legal point of contact, and instruct staff at once that hiding or deleting materials can itself be evidence destruction. Object to seizure beyond the warrant — servers, personal devices — and secure the inventory. Afterward, map what was taken and stand up the defense framework for employee interviews without delay.

Yes. Criminal liability attaches to the individual actor, so carrying out company instructions does not shield an employee who knowingly participated; joint-penalty provisions then fine the company alongside. The crucial point is where the company's interests diverge from yours — corporate counsel may not be defending you personally. If there is any sign you may become a suspect rather than a witness, consider separate counsel and plan the scope of your statement before the interview.

Define the purpose first — fact-finding, remediation, or preparing for an investigation — as it sets the scope and method. Principles: run it under counsel to protect the confidentiality of legal review; preserve emails, books, and approval records beyond suspicion of deletion; and sequence employee interviews with rank and conflicts of interest in mind. Keep the disposition — discipline, referral, self-reporting, production — open at the start; a clumsy internal review can itself invite spoliation suspicions.

Yes. Detention grounds (art. 70) apply regardless of position — and in corporate cases a CEO's very capacity to influence records and employees is often cited as a destruction risk. Warrants become likelier with large-scale embezzlement or breach of trust and suspected organized concealment. At the review hearing you must concretely show cooperation, the need to prepare a defense, and the impact of a management vacuum — so the case for non-detention should be built from the start of the investigation.

Because with many actors and voluminous records, uncoordinated early statements from employees become the investigators' frame — often they assemble the full picture before the company does. The essentials: preserve records and map what has left the building; unify the point of contact; support employees through interviews; and manage company-individual conflicts. Add the decision whether to use self-correction or leniency programs, and the first week effectively sets the skeleton of the case.