1. The Client’s Crisis

The client had directly managed a building owned by the parents since they were alive, and in return for that management, had been receiving a portion of the rental income in the form of salary. After the parents passed away, the other siblings learned of this and filed a criminal complaint, alleging that the client had embezzled the parents’ property. From the client’s perspective, this was something that had been lawfully received as compensation for managing the building, but if the embezzlement allegation was not addressed, the client could have become subject to punishment. Moreover, while asserting embezzlement, the siblings had taken the building management income (monthly rent) that the client had received. The client came to ZONE Law Firm to clear the false embezzlement accusation and recover the rightful income.

2. Key Issues

There were three major difficulties in this case. First, for embezzlement to be established, there must be intent not to return the deceased’s property on purpose (intent to unlawfully appropriate), and it had to be objectively proven that the client lacked such intent in managing the building and receiving part of the proceeds. Second, evidence had to be secured to support the fact that the client had been substantially managing the building since the parents were alive. Third, separate from defending against the criminal allegations, civil action had to be pursued in parallel to recover the building management proceeds that the siblings had unjustly taken.

3. ZONE’s Strategy

Managing Partner Attorney Yoon Ji-sang designed both the criminal defense and the civil claim at the same time.

In the criminal case, two defense theories were pursued in parallel. First, we actively argued that the client lacked intent to embezzle. For embezzlement to be established, it must be shown that the person had the intent to take the deceased’s property and not return it to the other heirs, and then carried out that intent. We objectively proved that the client had directly managed the building since the parents were alive and had been receiving part of the rental income in the form of salary as compensation for that management. We systematically organized and submitted records of the building management history, lease contract management details, and the process by which the salary was received. At the same time, we also argued that under the special rule for crimes against close relatives and family members (Article 328(1) of the Criminal Act), punishment is exempted for property crimes between lineal blood relatives and relatives.

In the civil case, we filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the siblings for unfairly taking the client’s rightful building management income while asserting embezzlement.

4. Results and Recovery

In the criminal case, the client was cleared of the embezzlement charges. The argument that receiving part of the income as compensation for managing the building was lawful and that no intent to embezzle could be found was accepted. Furthermore, the client also prevailed in the civil lawsuit and was able to recover the building management income that the siblings had unjustly taken. The client not only escaped the unjust criminal allegations but also recovered rightful economic rights.

※ Reference regarding the abolition of the special rule for crimes between relatives and the revision of the Criminal Act

This case was handled and concluded at a time when the former Criminal Act’s provision on the special rule for crimes between relatives (Article 328(1)), which uniformly exempted punishment for property crimes between relatives, was validly in effect.

However, following the Constitutional Court’s decision of incompatibility with the Constitution in 2024, as the Criminal Act amendment passed the National Assembly in December 2025, the blanket provision exempting punishment for property crimes between family members was completely abolished. At present, regardless of kinship, even for property crimes such as embezzlement committed among family members, the legal environment has completely changed so that the offender can be punished if the victim files a complaint (complaint-based offense).

Therefore, if issues such as embezzlement or misappropriation of inherited property arise between family members today, one should not rely on past precedents or information, but instead establish an accurate defense and attack strategy in line with the revised current law. For legal judgments on specific matters, please be sure to consult a specialist attorney who is well-versed in the latest legal principles.

Attorney in charge: Managing Partner Attorney Yoon Ji-sang

For confidentiality purposes, some parts of this case have been de-identified within a scope that does not compromise the essence of the matter.