Stole Accounting Manager’s Computer and Even Changed Passwords, but... Court Acquits on Theft Charge

According to The Financial News, a former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was fined after taking an employee’s computer home to review accounting data and even changing the passwords, following a request to contribute personal assets when the company was struggling financially. However, the court recognized that the CEO also had possessory rights over company property and, after considering the circumstances and purpose of the act, found him not guilty of theft.
On the 4th, the 13th Single-Judge Criminal Division of the Seoul Southern District Court, presided over by Judge Kim Sung-eun, sentenced a man in his 70s, identified only by his surname Baek, the former CEO of a biotechnology company, to a fine of 5 million won. He had been indicted on charges of special theft and obstruction of business by interfering with computer systems.
Baek was accused of taking home in December 2024 the computer used by Accounting Team Manager A, which was located at the company office. He then allegedly accessed the machine in administrator mode, changed the intranet passwords and computer login passwords of A and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) B, and deleted A’s account privileges.
Because Baek registered and set up his own child as the new administrator, A and B were reportedly unable to access the intranet for a certain period of time.
Earlier, when the company ran into a cash crunch, Baek had received a request from an investment company in August of the same year to "step down as CEO and delegate his duties." He was then effectively excluded from research and development work and left only with overseas marketing and overall management responsibilities, according to reports.
Later, after B asked him to contribute about 560 million won of his personal assets, Baek allegedly decided to commit the act in order to review the accounting records. This occurred the day before a board of directors’ resolution on a paid-in capital increase through his personal contribution and a follow-up investment meeting that was conditional on that contribution. Investigators found that Baek had visited the company the day before and on the day of the incident to obtain the accounting data from A, but was unable to review the materials because no executives or employees were present.
During the trial, Baek’s side argued that he had merely used the company’s administrator mode because the computer assigned to A was password-protected and difficult to access. The court rejected this, stating, "If one accesses a computer in administrator mode and changes the passwords set on the computer and the intranet accounts, it is fully foreseeable that the account holders will no longer be able to access the intranet." The court added, "The defendant also claims he reset the passwords by mistake, but it is hard to believe that, while operating by mistake, he happened to reset only the accounts of employees with access to accounting data. Rather, it appears he reset them in order to find out the intranet chat history of A and B."
The court went on, "Changing passwords arbitrarily without notifying the account holders and thereby preventing them from accessing the intranet needed for company work constitutes an abuse of the authority-management function," and continued, "The mere fact that he disclosed the passwords when returning the computer does not allow us to conclude that he lacked intent to obstruct business. Since he could foresee the possibility or risk that business operations would be disrupted, at least conditional intent is established."
As for sentencing, the court noted, "Fortunately, the intranet accounts were restored quickly, so the period of obstruction was not long," and added, "The company’s damage was not significant, and it is favorable to the defendant that he is a first-time offender with no prior criminal record."
However, the court acquitted Baek of the special theft charge. It stated, "It appears he took the computer and related items in order to review the accounting data in connection with his personal capital contribution and to return them afterward," and continued, "He attempted to review the accounting records through what he considered proper channels, but was unable to obtain the cooperation of executives and employees in the run-up to the board meeting. The purpose of his conduct seems to have been to understand the company’s accounting and overall management situation in order to perform his duties as CEO."
The court further explained, "It is reasonable to view that, absent special circumstances, a CEO generally and comprehensively acquires possession over company-owned items," and added, "He appears to have had no motive to risk criminal punishment by stealing them."
psh@fnnews.com Park Sung-hyun Reporter