Background
Our client, A, had served in public office before working as an officer of an association. The prosecution indicted A on allegations that ▲ A had embezzled several hundred million won of funds managed by the association by spending them on purposes other than those designated (occupational embezzlement), ▲ A had received tens of millions of won from a relative in connection with one of the association's service contracts, and ▲ A had received benefits worth tens of millions of won from a company in connection with another construction project (taking bribes in breach of trust). B, the party said to have provided the money, was also put on trial alongside A.
What Was at Stake
Large sums had changed hands, funds appeared to have been used differently from their designated purposes, and substantial money had moved between relatives — on the surface, the suspicions looked weighty. The prosecution's case rested on the premises that "A used funds for another purpose = embezzlement" and "money moved between relatives = a bribe."
How Changchun Helped
Changchun examined the "legal elements" one by one rather than the surface appearance. ▲ (Embezzlement) We established as a matter of law that spending funds on a purpose other than the one designated does not by itself constitute embezzlement against the association, and that our client bore only a duty to disburse funds in accordance with the association's rules and budget. ▲ (Taking bribes in breach of trust) We proved, through a long record of transactions and evidence of settlement (including the fact that part of the money received was in fact returned), that the money exchanged between relatives formed part of routine financial dealings that had continued for more than twenty years. ▲ (The other bribery allegation) We showed that the expenses said to have been borne by the company differed little from travel expenses properly payable under the association's rules, and that the statements offered in support lacked credibility.
The court held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor did not prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted both our client and B, who had been indicted alongside A. The judgment makes clear that the larger the sums and the heavier the suspicion, the more a case must be tested by "strict proof" and "legal elements" rather than by suspicion. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.