Property Crime Lawyer
Property Crime Lawyer | What Each Charge Means and How the Penalty Is Decided
Property crime is an umbrella term covering theft, fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust, each defined separately in the Korean Criminal Code (형법) and each carrying its own penalty range. Whether you were caught taking something without consent, accused of tricking someone out of money, or reported by a business partner over how funds were handled, the label the police attach to your case at the very start often shapes the rest of the investigation. Because the same facts can sometimes be charged under more than one provision, and because restitution or settlement affects sentencing differently depending on the offense, understanding which charge applies to you is the first real decision point in your defense.
Property Crime | Theft, Fraud, Embezzlement, and Breach of Trust: What Distinguishes Each
These four offenses are the core of Korean property crime law. They overlap in everyday language but require different elements to prove, which is exactly why the specific charge matters for your defense.
Theft requires taking property belonging to someone else against their will, with the intent to unlawfully keep or use it for yourself (형법 제329조). The core dispute in most theft cases is not whether the item moved hands, but whether the accused actually intended to permanently deprive the owner of it, as opposed to borrowing, misunderstanding ownership, or joint possession. Aggravated forms exist for habitual offenders or repeat theft under related statutes, which can significantly raise the sentencing range.
Fraud requires deceiving another person and thereby causing them to hand over property or a financial benefit, with the accused knowing at the time that the representation was false (형법 제347조). Investigators focus heavily on the accused's state of mind at the moment of the transaction — for example, whether a business genuinely intended and was able to perform a contract, or knew in advance it could not. Civil non-payment or a failed business deal alone is not automatically fraud; intent to deceive from the outset is the key dividing line.
Embezzlement applies when a person who is lawfully holding another's property for safekeeping, management, or a specific purpose instead uses or disposes of it for their own benefit, or refuses to return it (형법 제355조 제1항). This frequently arises with company funds, association dues, or property held under a trust or agency relationship. The dispute usually centers on whether the funds were genuinely earmarked for a specific purpose and whether the use was authorized, even informally, by the owner.
Breach of trust applies when a person who handles another's affairs acts against that duty for their own benefit or a third party's benefit, thereby causing property damage to the person whose affairs were entrusted (형법 제355조 제2항). It is most common in disputes among company directors, partners, or agents over business decisions that later turned out badly. Because ordinary business judgment can look similar to a breach of duty in hindsight, this charge often requires close scrutiny of internal approval processes and whether the accused personally benefited.
Charges Can Overlap or Be Reclassified
It is common for prosecutors to initially charge one offense and later add or substitute another as the investigation develops, or to combine embezzlement and breach of trust charges when the facts are ambiguous. Aggravating statutes such as the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률) can also apply once the amount involved exceeds certain thresholds, which materially changes both the applicable court and the sentencing range.
Property Crime | How Penalties Compare Across the Four Offenses
Each offense has its own statutory penalty range, and the amount involved, the method used, and whether restitution has been made all move the actual sentence up or down within that range.
Base Penalty Ranges Under the Criminal Code
Theft carries imprisonment of up to 6 years or a fine of up to 10 million won (형법 제329조). Fraud carries imprisonment of up to 20 years or a fine of up to 50 million won (형법 제347조). Embezzlement and breach of trust each carry imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 15 million won for the basic offense, with breach of trust technically referencing the same article (형법 제355조).
When the Amount Involved Triggers a Harsher Statute
Once the amount involved reaches 500 million won or more, the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes applies instead of the basic Criminal Code provisions, raising the minimum sentence and moving the case into a different sentencing track (특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조). This is why prosecutors and courts pay close attention to how the total amount is calculated, especially in embezzlement and fraud cases involving multiple transactions over time.
Repeat Offenses and Aggravating Circumstances
Habitual theft, use of tools or planning, and targeting elderly or vulnerable victims in fraud cases tend to push sentencing recommendations upward under the Sentencing Guidelines maintained by the Supreme Court's Sentencing Commission. Prior convictions for the same category of offense are one of the most consistently cited factors in increasing the actual sentence handed down.
How Restitution and Settlement Affect Sentencing
Full or partial restitution to the victim, and especially a written settlement stating the victim does not wish to pursue punishment, is one of the most significant mitigating factors across all four offenses. Because fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust often involve an identifiable financial loss, showing that the loss has been made whole materially affects whether a case proceeds to indictment or is resolved with a summary fine.
Property Crime | Common Defense Strategies by Offense Type
Because these offenses require proving intent at a specific moment — the moment of taking, the moment of deception, or the moment funds were diverted — much of the defense work focuses on reconstructing that moment through documents and communications.
Disputing Intent Rather Than the Facts
In many theft and embezzlement cases, the accused does not dispute that property changed hands or that funds were used, but disputes whether there was intent to unlawfully deprive the owner. Evidence such as prior authorization, ordinary business practice at the company, or a genuine belief of co-ownership can be central to this defense.
Fraud Defense: Ability and Intent to Perform
A common defense in fraud cases is showing that, at the time of the representation, the accused genuinely intended and had a reasonable basis to believe they could perform — meaning any later failure was a business or civil matter, not deception from the start. Financial records, communications, and the timeline of events before and after the deal are usually the deciding evidence.
Breach of Trust: Business Judgment vs. Personal Gain
In breach of trust cases involving company decisions, the key question is often whether the decision was made in good faith for the company's benefit, even if it turned out poorly, or whether the accused personally profited or knowingly caused harm. Board minutes, internal approvals, and whether outside advice was sought are frequently the strongest evidence for the defense.
Reducing Exposure Through Early Restitution
Because these are property offenses, resolving the financial harm early — before indictment if possible — can change the trajectory of the case, sometimes leading to a non-indictment decision or diversion to a summary procedure rather than a formal trial. This needs to be weighed carefully with a property crime lawyer, since an early offer of restitution can sometimes be treated as an implicit admission if not handled properly.
Property Crime | How a Property Crime Investigation Typically Unfolds
A lawyer reviews the complaint or summons, identifies which specific offense is alleged, and checks whether the facts as described actually satisfy the legal elements of that charge.
Before the first substantive interview, the lawyer organizes documentary evidence, communications, and a timeline, and advises on how to respond to specific lines of questioning without unnecessarily expanding the scope of the investigation.
After the police forward the case, the lawyer submits a written opinion addressing the elements in dispute and, where appropriate, evidence of restitution or settlement to support a non-indictment or reduced-charge outcome.
If the case is indicted, the lawyer prepares for trial by challenging disputed elements such as intent, reviewing the prosecution's evidence, and where the amount is contested, examining how the loss was calculated.
Where a conviction is likely or has occurred, the lawyer presents mitigating factors — restitution, lack of prior record, and the circumstances of the offense — to argue for a suspended sentence, reduced fine, or lighter classification under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Property Crime | How Fees Are Structured in Property Crime Cases
Generally set based on the stage of the case (police investigation, prosecutor's review, or trial), the specific offense charged, and the amount of property or money at issue, since higher amounts typically mean a more complex evidentiary review.
If used, this is tied to a defined, objective outcome such as non-indictment, a reduced charge, or a suspended sentence, and is agreed in writing in advance rather than framed as a guarantee of any particular result.
Any amount paid to the victim to resolve financial harm is separate from legal fees and is negotiated case by case; it is not a payment to the firm but part of resolving the underlying property dispute.
Costs such as document retrieval, expert review of financial records in complex embezzlement or breach of trust cases, and transcription of evidence are billed separately as incurred.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Property Crime | Self-Check Before Your First Interview
1️⃣ If You Received a Police Summons for Theft
- Do you dispute that you took the item, or only that you intended to keep it permanently?
- Was there any prior arrangement, shared access, or belief of co-ownership regarding the property?
- Have you had any prior theft-related record within the past several years?
- Has the property already been returned or its value compensated to the owner?
2️⃣ If You Are Accused of Fraud
- At the time of the statement or contract, did you genuinely believe you could perform as promised?
- Do you have records showing your financial situation or business status at that time?
- Is the counterparty framing what may be a civil non-payment dispute as criminal fraud?
- Have you communicated with the counterparty about repayment or resolution since the dispute arose?
3️⃣ If You Are Accused of Embezzlement
- Were the funds or property entrusted to you for a specific, defined purpose?
- Did you have any form of approval, even informal, for how the funds were used?
- Can you reconstruct where the funds went with bank records or receipts?
- Is the amount involved close to or above 500 million won, which could trigger the aggravated statute?
4️⃣ If You Are Accused of Breach of Trust
- Was the decision at issue made through a normal internal approval process?
- Did you personally benefit from the decision, or was the harm purely incidental to a business judgment?
- Are there board minutes, emails, or advice from outside professionals supporting your decision at the time?
- Is the counterparty a business partner or company with whom a civil resolution might still be possible?
5️⃣ Before You Speak to Investigators
- Have you organized a factual timeline before your first interview?
- Have you avoided giving a written statement or apology without legal advice?
- Do you understand which specific charge is being investigated, not just the general accusation?
