Monks Who Diverted 250 Million Won After Head Monk's Death: Supreme Court Recognizes Embezzlement

The Supreme Court has ruled that a monk who managed the bank account of a deceased head monk and transferred a large sum of money without the consent of the heirs can be found guilty of embezzlement.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on August 18, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Noh Kyung-pil) overturned the lower court's acquittal of embezzlement charges against individuals identified as A and B, who had been indicted on charges including embezzlement and falsification of electronic records, and remanded the case to the Seoul Northern District Court for retrial.

A, who was in charge of administrative affairs at a temple in Seoul, had managed the bank account of the temple's head monk since 2000. After the head monk passed away in March 2022, A transferred 250 million won from the head monk's account-either by check or bank transfer-to B, a disciple monk at the temple, without the consent of the heirs. Prosecutors indicted A and B, alleging that they had conspired to commit embezzlement against the heirs.

In the first trial, A was sentenced to six months in prison with two years of probation, and B was sentenced to one year in prison with two years of probation. Additionally, they were ordered to complete 80 and 120 hours of community service, respectively.

The appellate court, however, acquitted them of embezzlement, finding them guilty only of falsifying a deposit claim form in the name of the deceased head monk when transferring the funds. The appellate court ruled that there was no fiduciary relationship between A and the heirs regarding the head monk's assets.

However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The justices stated, "There is sufficient reason to believe that A was in a position to hold the funds deposited in the deceased's account for the benefit of the heirs, based on customary practice or the principle of good faith." The court added, "Even if, as the appellate court found, the mandate between A and the deceased ended upon the latter's death, A is still obligated under civil law to return any money or property received in the course of handling the affairs of the mandate. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the fiduciary relationship under criminal law with the heirs was also terminated."

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