Wife in her 60s Sentenced to Suspended Jail Term for Withdrawing 1.2 Billion Won from Husband's Account

A wife in her 60s has been tried for fraud and other charges after embezzling 1.2 billion won from her remarried husband's account while he was in critical condition. The Suwon District Court sentenced the wife, identified as Ms. A, to two years in prison, suspended for four years, ruling that the money constituted embezzlement and document forgery.

Ms. A began living with her husband, Mr. B, in 2018 and they officially registered their marriage in 2021. She had been managing Mr. B's assets while he was ill. Mr. B's health rapidly deteriorated after surgery for a fall, leading to a state of consciousness impairment in October 2021.

Ms. A's actions began immediately after her husband was admitted to the intensive care unit. She withdrew 100 million won in cash via check from her husband's account and transferred 200 million won to her own account. The following day, she transferred an additional 400 million won to her account. Before her husband's death, she transferred approximately 500 million won more to another of her husband's accounts that she managed. She also attempted to sell stocks worth about 300 million won held by her husband and receive the proceeds, but this attempt was unsuccessful.

In court, Ms. A argued that all withdrawals and transfers were made according to her husband's wishes before his death and were within the scope of inheritance, thus lacking intent for unlawful gain. However, the court rejected these claims. The court found no objective evidence that the deceased (Mr. B) had promised to gift Ms. A assets equivalent to her inheritance share or had granted her comprehensive authority to dispose of his property.

Conversely, the deceased had strictly controlled Ms. A's access to his deposits a year prior to the incident. The court pointed out that Ms. A's urgent withdrawals and transfers of over 1 billion won within five days, immediately after recognizing her husband's life-threatening condition, appeared to be an attempt to effectively transfer the assets to her name without legitimate authority. Furthermore, the court ruled that inheritance begins after death, and since inheritance shares are determined based on consultations with other heirs and whether lifetime gifts were made, it was difficult to consider her as having the legitimate right to pre-emptively acquire her perceived inheritance share before her husband's death. Based on these grounds, the court recognized Ms. A's intent for unlawful gain.