The Full Story of Hwang Jung-eum’s 43 Billion Won Embezzlement Case, Explained by Korea Lawyer
On May 20, the YouTube channel Korea Lawyer (469,000 subscribers) released a video analyzing actress Hwang Jung-eum embezzlement case, which garnered 96,352 views by 6:15 PM (KST) that day.
In the video, the lawyer provided a detailed analysis of the legal issues and psychological background of Hwang Jung-eum’s case. According to the video, Hwang Jung-eum is charged with embezzling approximately 43 billion won (about $31 million USD) from her personal corporation under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. Having admitted to the charges, her case now awaits sentencing.
The lawyer pointed out that Hwang Jung-eum’s one-person agency is a legal corporation, and emphasized that corporate funds are not the personal assets of the representative, criticizing her for mistakenly treating them as such. He further noted that she enjoyed tax benefits through the corporation while using its funds as if they were her own.
The video also explained criminal procedure terms like “suspect,” “defendant,” and “indictment,” highlighting that Hwang Jung-eum is currently a defendant in an ongoing trial. Regarding her claim that “no third party was harmed,” the lawyer countered that a corporation and its representative are legally distinct, and misappropriating corporate funds inherently causes harm, regardless of her assertion.
The analysis delved into the psychological and behavioral roots of the case, suggesting that Hwang Jung-eum’s spending habits and emotional state played a role. The lawyer noted that her life began to unravel around 2020 during her first divorce consideration, marked by the purchase of a 4.5 billion won house and a luxury supercar. He argued that Hwang Jung-eum’s mindset of “spending future earnings now” led to reckless investments and financial mismanagement.
The video frames Hwang Jung-eum’s case around two key issues: a lack of understanding of corporate structure and a loss of direction in life. The lawyer highlighted her failure to grasp the legal responsibilities tied to corporate funds, treating them as personal assets. Additionally, he pointed out that, post-divorce, she mistakenly viewed financial success as a means of personal recovery, contributing to her missteps.
