Appellate criminal defense of a high school sports coach charged with breach-of-trust bribery and embezzlement

A high school sports team coach was indicted on charges including accepting money in connection with players' college admissions and misusing team operating funds received from the parents' association.

At trial, the coach was convicted on all charges of accepting a bribe in breach of trust, giving a bribe in breach of trust, and embezzlement, and received a suspended prison sentence.

On appeal, Attorney Jaehoon Lee admitted the charge of giving a bribe in breach of trust, but reexamined the facts and the legal elements of the charges of accepting a bribe in breach of trust and embezzlement and argued for acquittal on those charges.

On the charge of accepting a bribe in breach of trust, the key issue was whether money received in connection with players' college admissions could be seen as consideration for an improper request.

In particular, the question was whether a quid pro quo between an improper request and the money received could be found even where the money was paid after the player's college admission had already been decided through the normal selection process.

On the embezzlement charge, the core issue was whether the money the parents' association regularly paid to the coach was entrusted funds earmarked for a specific purpose, or money in the nature of activity expenses and salary support over which the power of disposal had also passed to the coach.

Attorney Lee analyzed the players' college admission procedures, how they were actually selected, and when the money was paid, and contested the existence of an improper request and of a quid pro quo for the money received.

In particular, he compared when the players' college admissions were decided with when the money was paid, reviewed the relevant case law, and argued that the offense of accepting a bribe in breach of trust could not be established merely from the fact that money had been received.

He also analyzed the statements and petitions of members of the parents' association to examine the nature of the money paid to the coach and the power to dispose of it, and argued as a matter of law that the coach did not hold the status of custodian of another's property required for embezzlement.

As for the charge of giving a bribe in breach of trust, he admitted the offense and argued that the sentence was excessive, taking into account how the offense came about and the defendant's professional and personal circumstances.