Embezzlement After Abbot's Death: Funds Withdrawn from Account

[Supreme Court Ruling]

The Supreme Court has overturned an appellate court’s acquittal of an abbot and an account manager who were accused of embezzlement after withdrawing funds from the deceased abbot’s account following his death from COVID-19.

The Supreme Court’s Criminal Division 3 (Presiding Justice Noh Kyungpil) on July 17 set aside the lower court’s acquittal of A and B on embezzlement charges and remanded the case to the Seoul Northern District Court (Case No. 2025Do5236).

Asia Economy DB

[Facts of the Case]

D, who had served as the abbot of Temple C in Jungnang-gu, Seoul, since April 1994, died in March 2022 due to a COVID-19 infection. After D’s death, A was appointed as the new abbot. Since around 2000, B had managed the temple’s accounts under D’s direction. B, in collusion with A, used the passbook, cash card, and passwords to withdraw a total of 250 million won from the account in D’s name and transferred the funds to an account under A’s name.

[Lower Court Rulings]

The court of first instance found both individuals guilty, sentencing A to one year in prison with a two-year suspended sentence, and B to six months in prison with a two-year suspended sentence. Both were also ordered to complete 80 hours of community service. The court stated, “At the time of the offense, it was clear that the funds in the account were D’s personal property, and it is reasonable to conclude that the defendants acted with intent to embezzle and with the intent to unlawfully appropriate the funds.”

However, the appellate court acquitted them of embezzlement, stating, “Based solely on the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is difficult to recognize a fiduciary relationship between B and the victim, who is D’s heir, regarding the funds held in the account at issue.”

[Supreme Court Ruling]

The Supreme Court’s view differed. It found that there was a possibility that B, based on customary practice or the principle of good faith, was in a position to hold the funds deposited in D’s account for the benefit of D’s heir.

The bench stated, “The absence of a contractual or explicit fiduciary relationship between B and the heir, or the mere fact that the heir could exercise a claim for the deposit at the bank, does not change this assessment. Upon D’s death, the victim as D’s heir inherited the funds in D’s account, and B, as the person with actual control over the account on D’s behalf, was in a position-based on customary practice or the principle of good faith-to protect or manage the heir’s assets.”

The court continued, “Even if, as the appellate court found, the agency relationship between D and B ended upon D’s death, B was still obliged under civil law to return any money or other property received in connection with the agency. Therefore, the fiduciary relationship under criminal law with the heir cannot be considered to have ended.”

The court concluded, “The appellate court misapplied the legal principles regarding the fiduciary relationship required for embezzlement and failed to sufficiently examine the necessary facts, which affected the outcome of the ruling.”

Han Soohyun, Law Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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