In the case where A (the spouse of B who is the CEO and the sole shareholder of Company C) who was an employee of Company C embezzled the properties of Company C, the prosecution indicted only a part of the amount of embezzlement and did not indict the rest of the amount, DR & AJU persistently pleaded on behalf of the Company C. As the result, DR & AJU drew the decision to prosecute from the Seoul High Court (affirmed in part).

During the investigation, A argued that A did not have any “intent of unlawful acquisition” because A simply rejected Company C’s request to return its properties entrusted to A to Company C suddenly after A’s relationship with B got worse. The prosecutor accepted A’s excuse and thus accused A of embezzlement only for the part that A had sold to a third party while keeping the properties of Company C in custody.

In response to this, DR & AJU filed an application for ruling an indictment to the Seoul High Court, arguing that A’s intent of unlawful acquisition was found on the grounds that ▲ A’s argument was not true as the reason for the worsened relationship between A and B was based on A’s above criminal act discovered by B, ▲ A distorted his criminal act as if it was just a personal dispute with B while the victim of this case is not B but Company C, ▲ the fact that A had already sold a part of the properties of Company C which were in A’s custody to a third party before A was requested by Company C to return the properties and subsequently used the proceeds for A’s own good clearly proves A’s intent of unlawful acquisition, and ▲ embezzlement is a crime that is constituted immediately when the intent of embezzlement of a person who holds the other’s property in trust is manifested. The Seoul High Court upheld DR & AJU’s argument and made a decision to prosecute.

DR & AJU drew the court’s decision to prosecute by making a concentrated defense focusing on relevant facts and legal principles. This case is of significance where the average acceptance rate of the application for ruling an indictment to the High Court is merely 0.77% in recent 5 years.