Statute of Limitations for the Crime of Theft | A Client Who Sought Advice Asking About the Statute of Limitations Over Past Theft Conduct

The client asserted that he had never agreed with the people who committed the offense together about the division of proceeds, and that most of the proceeds had been taken by the accomplices.

The attorney specializing in criminal matters collaborated with an expert at the digital forensics center to secure and submit as evidence the content of the text conversations exchanged with the accomplices, as well as the secondhand-trade records and the account deposit and withdrawal records.

In fact, the proceeds taken by the client as identified in these materials amounted to only about 10 million won.

As the business the client started together with the family failed, the client was burdened with about 60 million won in debt and was experiencing difficulty in a situation where he had to support a spouse and young children.

This was confirmed, in collaboration with the evidence investigation center, through debt and financial materials, to show that the client had been in an economically difficult situation at the time the incident occurred.

In addition, the client acknowledged his own wrongdoing and felt sorry toward the company that had suffered great harm, and by submitting petitions written by his parents, siblings, and others, he asserted that he would not repeat the same wrongdoing again.

The client, who was contacted by the investigative authorities, submitted a written self-surrender acknowledging the offense within a few days.

Moreover, the client actively cooperated with the investigation, stating even content that the investigative authorities had not known, such as the place where the accomplices with whom the offense had been committed together had stored the items stolen at that time.

Regarding self-surrender under the Criminal Act, the Supreme Court has judged as follows.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3133, October 14, 2004

The self-surrender referred to in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act is established when an offender voluntarily reports his or her own criminal facts to an investigative authority and makes a declaration of intent seeking prosecution, and it also includes a case in which, after the offense has been discovered, the offender voluntarily appears before an investigative authority and confesses the criminal facts; once self-surrender has been established, the effect of the self-surrender definitively arises.

The criminal defense attorney emphasized that the client had voluntarily acknowledged the offense and cooperated with the investigation, and, asserting various grounds for mitigating circumstances, emphasized that this was a matter warranting leniency.

The statute of limitations for the crime of theft refers to the system under which prosecution cannot be brought once a certain period has passed from the time the crime occurred.

In the end, even a past theft case may still be subject to criminal punishment if the statute of limitations has not been completed, so accurate confirmation is necessary.

The Criminal Act provides for the crime of theft as follows.

In addition, the Criminal Procedure Act sets the limitations period according to the statutory punishment as follows.

That is, because the statutory punishment for the crime of theft is imprisonment for not more than six years, the statute of limitations for the crime of theft is, in principle, seven years.

However, the comprehensive judgment may differ depending on the starting point of the limitations period, whether there were accomplices, the number of times the offense was committed, and other factors.

Accordingly, before judging that the statute of limitations has been completed on the ground that the incident occurred long ago, it is important to confirm the specific facts at an early stage.