In the last article, we looked at the characteristics of (business-related) embezzlement and breach of trust cases and the response patterns of each actor. In particular, by the time the victim company takes legal action against an executive or employee who committed a violation of duty, it is highly likely that the executive or employee in question has already voluntarily retired or been dismissed for disciplinary action. In this situation, a type of 'information asymmetry' occurs, so the actor is legally responsible. It was also pointed out that they had difficulty coping. Below, we will take a closer look at ‘property damage’ among the elements of (business-related) breach of trust.

▲ Meaning and judgment criteria of ‘property damage’ in (business) breach of trust
When the victim (company) takes legal action, such as filing a criminal complaint or agreeing to repayment, it will independently calculate the economic damage suffered by the company due to the breach of trust. At this time, the amount of property damage claimed by the victim becomes the standard for the amount of repayment from the actor's (offender's) perspective. Moreover, in the case of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes ('Special Police Act'), it stipulates that aggravated punishment is imposed when the amount of gain is more than 500 million won and more than 5 billion won (*There are aggravated requirements depending on the amount of economic gain), so it is a violation of duty. Whether it falls into the 'aggravated punishment area' also depends on the size of the gain (damage) resulting from it.