Accused Embezzling Employee but "Does Not Want Punishment"... Why Did Amore Do That?

Amorepacific Does Not Seek Punishment for Embezzling Employees
Submitted Non-Prosecution Request to Prosecutors... Trial at Seoul Western District Court
Not a Withdrawal of Complaint but Favorable for Sentencing
Controversy Over Leniency Rekindled... "Would This Have Been Possible for Regular Employees?"

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-yoon] Amorepacific has been confirmed to have filed complaints against employees who embezzled company funds but then submitted non-prosecution requests on their behalf, reigniting controversy over the previously raised issue of 'protecting one's own people.' One of the employees involved in the embezzlement is the son of former CEO A, who resigned in 2014(See Asia Economy May 19 article '[Exclusive] One of the Amorepacific employees who embezzled 3.5 billion KRW is the former CEO’s son'), raising suspicions that this might be a form of 'preferential treatment for former officials.'

According to industry sources on the 13th, Amorepacific submitted a non-prosecution request for three individuals, including Mr. B, to the prosecution on the 28th of last month. It is reported that the company’s legal team directly submitted the document to the prosecutor’s office.

Previously, three sales staff members of Amorepacific, including Mr. B, were caught embezzling 3.5 billion KRW of company funds over several years, using the money for stock and virtual asset investments, as well as illegal gambling funds, which was uncovered through an internal regular audit. Investigations revealed that they also engaged in illegal gambling together with other employees either at their remote work locations or within the company premises. Regarding this incident, Amorepacific held a personnel committee meeting to discipline and dismiss them. In addition to recovering the embezzled funds, the company reported recurrence prevention measures to the audit committee under the board of directors and notified the entire company.

A non-prosecution request is a document in which the victim expresses that they do not wish for the perpetrator to be punished, usually submitted to investigative agencies or courts when a mutual agreement has been reached between the parties. In the case of embezzlement, it is not a crime subject to conditional prosecution, so the complaint cannot be withdrawn, but the request is made to ask for consideration during sentencing. The submission of such a document before indictment can also be interpreted as a request to defer prosecution itself. However, the prosecution indicted them on charges including violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement). On the 3rd of this month, the indictment was filed with the 11th Criminal Division of the Seoul Western District Court. It has been confirmed that Amorepacific did not submit the non-prosecution request to the court.

Whether the non-prosecution request will be reflected in sentencing is entirely at the discretion of the court, but the fact that most of the damages have been compensated and that the victim does not wish for punishment is likely to be a significantly favorable factor in sentencing.

Earlier, Amorepacific completed disciplinary actions internally but did not take separate measures such as reporting to the police, only proceeding with the complaint process after being pressured following this news outlet’s investigation. Since one of the embezzling employees was confirmed to be the child of an executive, there was controversy over whether the company tried to cover up the matter. There is also strong criticism regarding the submission of the non-prosecution request. It is considered against common sense that the company, after discovering an employee’s embezzlement and filing a complaint, then directly submits a non-prosecution request on their behalf. Questions have been raised about whether such leniency would have been possible if the employee were an ordinary staff member.

Amorepacific explained regarding this matter, "The employees have repaid most of the amount, promised to sincerely repay the remaining balance, and actively cooperated with the internal investigation." Regarding suspicions that this was due to the employee being an executive’s child, the company firmly denied any connection, stating, "There is no relation whatsoever."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.