Former bank employee gets 5 years in second trial for 29-year embezzlement and flight

A former bank employee, identified only as A, has had his 5-year prison sentence upheld in a second trial for embezzling nearly 1 billion won and fleeing overseas for 29 years. The Gwangju High Court on Thursday dismissed A's appeal, confirming the original sentence for the embezzlement of 965 million won.

A, who worked as a loan manager, was accused of embezzling the funds on September 18, 1998, by manipulating the bank's computer systems. He transferred the money to about 10 accounts belonging to his brother-in-law. The embezzled amount is equivalent to 1.84 billion won today.

“

A meticulously planned the crime in advance, and his brother-in-law, who participated in the crime, led his family, waited near the airport, and immediately withdrew the embezzled public funds upon deposit before fleeing to the Philippines.

Authorities stated that A had incurred significant debt from stock investments using borrowed money. He meticulously planned the crime and fled to the Philippines with his family immediately after the funds were transferred to his brother-in-law's accounts. His brother-in-law, who assisted in the escape, was apprehended and sentenced to 3 years in prison in 2018.

“

A returned after evading for 27 years, and the actual damage, excluding amounts not withdrawn or frozen, is 390 million won, which is 740 million won at the time of indictment.

A remained a fugitive for 27 years before voluntarily returning to South Korea last year. The first trial court highlighted the extensive evasion period and the substantial financial loss, noting that even after excluding amounts not withdrawn or frozen, the actual damage was 390 million won at the time of the indictment, equivalent to 740 million won in today's value. The court also pointed out A's lack of effort towards restitution and his attempts to shift blame to his already-punished accomplice, emphasizing the severity of his breach of professional ethics.

The appellate court found no new circumstances or significant changes since the first trial that would warrant a modification of the sentence, thus upholding the 5-year prison term.

“

There are no circumstances or special changes in circumstances that warrant a sentence adjustment after the first trial ruling.