CONTENTS
- 1. Destruction of Military Property | Concept
- 2. Examining the Types of Destruction of Military Property
- - Differences Between the Crime of Property Damage and the Crime of Destruction of Military Property
- - Destruction of Military Property: Even Negligent Offenders Are Punished
- 3. Destruction of Military Property | Examining the Level of Punishment
- - Investigation Procedure for Destruction of Military Property
- 4. Destruction of Military Property | Reviewing Key Response Points
- 5. Destruction of Military Property | Points of Defense
- - A Response to Civil Damages May Also Be Necessary
- - Destruction of Military Property: If You Need Legal Assistance
1. Destruction of Military Property | Concept
Destruction of military property refers to the act of destroying or damaging military equipment, materials, and the like used for the performance of military operations or for national defense.
Because this is regarded not as mere property damage but as a matter directly connected to the military's combat power and national defense capability, it carries far more severe punishment than the crime of property damage in the civilian context.
In destruction of military property, the term destruction includes not only physical damage but also cases where the property's utility is impaired, so it is established even where the property appears outwardly intact but a problem has arisen in the use of the military property.
2. Examining the Types of Destruction of Military Property
Destruction of military property is divided into several types depending on the manner of the act or its object. The main types are as follows.
1. Intentional destruction of military property
This refers to cases where a service member intentionally destroys military property such as military vehicles, weapons, equipment, or ammunition.
Acts such as breaking a vehicle out of defiance toward a superior, or damaging a firearm out of dislike for training, fall under this category.
2. Negligent destruction of military property
This is a case where there is no intent, but military property is destroyed due to gross carelessness or neglect of management.
For example, this includes cases where an accident occurs because a military vehicle was not properly maintained, or a firearm was allowed to rust because it was not properly stored.
3. Co-principal or aiding
When several people jointly destroy military property, they are punished as co-principals, and a person who assists or directs this may also be punished as an accessory.
4. Indirect destruction
The crime of destruction may also be established where damage is caused to military property by an indirect cause.
For example, if smoking near hazardous materials leads to the explosion of ammunition, liability for the crime of destruction may arise.
Differences Between the Crime of Property Damage and the Crime of Destruction of Military Property
The crime of property damage and the crime of destruction of military property are both crimes concerning the act of damaging an object, but there are important differences in the nature of the object, the status of the actor, and the level of punishment.
Item | Crime of Property Damage | Crime of Destruction of Military Property |
Legal basis | Article 366 of the Criminal Act | Article 69 of the Military Criminal Act, etc. |
Protected legal interest | The property rights of an individual or another person | National security and the maintenance of military combat power |
Object | The property of an ordinary individual or of the public | Military property |
Actor | Anyone | Mainly service members and military civilian employees |
Whether intent is required | Established only when intentional | Both intent and negligence are punished |
The crime of destruction of military property is judged not as mere property damage but as a threat to the military's ability to carry out its mission, so it carries much heavier punishment.
Given the special nature of maintaining military discipline and national security, its legislative purpose, scope of application, and standards of punishment all differ from those of the ordinary crime of property damage.
In particular, since service members may be punished even for negligence, greater care is required during routine equipment management and maintenance.
Destruction of Military Property: Even Negligent Offenders Are Punished
The most significant feature of destruction of military property is that one is punished even when military property is destroyed by negligence.
This was a case in which a military jeep, while crossing a railroad track without authorization, fell into a drainage ditch due to the driver's lack of driving skill, and part of the vehicle collided with a train and was destroyed.
The court held that, even if the defendant, who was the senior passenger, had directed the crossing of the railroad, that fact alone could not be taken to establish joint negligence liability for the resulting destruction.
This precedent shows that, even when the crime of destruction of military property by negligence is applied, the specific presence or absence of negligence on the part of the individual actor must be clearly determined.
See More
3. Destruction of Military Property | Examining the Level of Punishment
For destruction of military property, no fine is prescribed for the intentional offense, but punishment for the negligent offense may be reduced to a fine, so it is necessary to prove that the offense was committed by negligence.
Rather than simply repeating the assertion that it was a mistake, one should reinforce the claim through objective evidence.
| Act | Level of Punishment for the Intentional Offense | Level of Punishment for the Negligent Offense |
| Arson of military facilities, etc. | Death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for at least 10 years | Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 3 million won |
| Arson of a warehouse | Where property used for military purposes is present: death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for at least 7 years Where property used for military purposes is not present: life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years | |
| Destruction of military facilities | Life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 2 years | |
| Destruction of vessels or aircraft | Death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for at least 5 years |
Investigation Procedure for Destruction of Military Property
When a charge of destruction of military property is raised, the process generally proceeds as follows.
1. Initial Investigation
The unit begins its own investigation, and statements from those involved as well as physical evidence are collected.
2. Military Police or Military Prosecution Investigation
If the suspicion is supported, the case is referred to the military police (or the military prosecution), and a formal investigation is conducted.
3. Indictment by the Military Prosecution
If indictment is decided, a public prosecution is brought before the military court.
4. Military Trial Procedure
The defendant's statement, examination of evidence, and a sentencing investigation are conducted, following a procedure similar to an ordinary criminal trial.
4. Destruction of Military Property | Reviewing Key Response Points
If you are involved in a case of destruction of military property, you should thoroughly prepare the following points.
▶Proving the Circumstances of the Damage
-You should actively demonstrate that there was no intent.
-Record in detail the circumstances at the time of the incident, the content of the commander's instructions, and whether the operating manual was followed.
▶Condition of the Military Property and Scale of the Damage
-You should accurately identify the actual extent of damage to the military property.
-In the case of minor damage, it is necessary to secure materials assessing the possibility of repair and the repair cost.
▶Whether Negligence Existed and Its Degree
-If the damage resulted not from your own negligence but from a structural problem or an erroneous instruction from a superior, this should be clearly established.
▶General Service Attitude
-Organizing your usual diligence in service, disciplinary history, and personnel records and reflecting them in a written statement may have a positive effect on sentencing.
▶A Sincere Letter of Reflection
-A letter of reflection expressing apology and a commitment to prevent recurrence is necessary. This can have a substantial effect on the court's sentencing.
5. Destruction of Military Property | Points of Defense
The main points of defense in cases of destruction of military property are as follows.
▶Denial of Intent
-If the incident occurred because the suspect did not fully understand the structure or use of the military property, intent may be difficult to recognize.
-It is possible to emphasize that it was a simple mistake or an unavoidable situation.
▶Argument of Negligent Management
-If the management system for military property was inadequate and the incident occurred as a result, the suspect's responsibility may be reduced.
-For example, when maintenance guidelines were not clearly communicated, or when the damage was unavoidable due to aging equipment.
A Response to Civil Damages May Also Be Necessary
Destruction of military property is not a matter that ends simply with punishment under the Military Criminal Act.
For the actual damage caused by the act of destruction, the suspect may face an order of indemnification or a concurrent civil claim for damages, and thus bears a dual risk in which criminal punishment and civil liability arise at the same time.
For example, when damage occurs to high-value military property such as a military vehicle, communications equipment, or a personal firearm, the repair or replacement cost is assessed, and that amount may be passed on to the suspect as an obligation to indemnify state property.
In this case, the suspect must mount a defense in the civil court, and active response is required, examining whether there was no intent regarding the destruction of military property, whether the negligence was minor, and whether the repair cost was not excessively assessed.
Because such indemnification liability may apply not only to intentional conduct but also to damage caused by negligence, the suspect should pursue a strategy that reduces the scope of liability by, along with defending against criminal punishment, securing supporting materials for the assessment of the loss amount, examining the possibility of restoration, expressing willingness to bear a portion of the cost, and asserting a structure of shared responsibility for the incident.
In particular, if the responsibility originated from a problem in the overall management system of the military, it is important to analyze external factors such as inadequate maintenance guidelines, the absence of safety training, and the aged condition of the equipment, and to document and submit them.
Destruction of Military Property: If You Need Legal Assistance
Destruction of military property is not a simple criminal case but a serious matter in the specialized field of military law, in which complex factors such as military discipline, the utility of equipment, and national security come into play.
In particular, because it can extend to the determination of intent, the proof of negligence, disputes over the loss amount, and even civil liability, a strategic approach is necessary from the initial statement stage.
Daeryun Law Firm provides integrated legal services across the entire process, from organizing the materials underlying the determination of intent and negligence, to responding during the investigation and trial, and analyzing the risks of indemnification and damages.
If you need legal assistance regarding a charge of destruction of military property, we hope you will receive the help of Daeryun Law Firm, which operates branch offices throughout the country and maintains a 24-hour, 365-day emergency response system, a non-face-to-face video consultation service, and a system for prompt consultation within garrison areas.
