Defending Against Theft Punishment | Assisting a Client Charged With Theft and Defending Against Theft Punishment Through a Suspension of Indictment

The client who requested a defense against theft punishment had been reported on a charge of taking leftover materials from the company and was facing an investigation.

The client was very flustered, having not known that the conduct constituted 🔗larceny.

To defend against theft punishment, the attorney undertook the client's defense.

A person who steals another's property may be punished by imprisonment for not more than six years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.

In the case of special (aggravated) theft, the punishment is imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than ten years.

Special (aggravated) theft means breaking part of a door, wall, or other structure at night and intruding into another person's premises to steal property, or stealing while carrying a deadly weapon or with two or more persons acting jointly.

In the case of a habitual offender, the punishment may be increased by up to one half.

The attorney handling the defense argued that the client was unaware that the act constituted theft.

The materials the client was suspected of stealing were scrap metal pieces left over from welding work.

The attorney emphasized that the client had taken the leftover materials because it seemed wasteful to discard them, and that this was not an intentional theft.

For the theft punishment defense, the attorney emphasized that the client had reached a settlement with the victim.

Although the client had not intended any wrongdoing, the client offered a sincere apology for taking the materials and paid a settlement amount to the company representative, who was the victim.

The victim also prepared a settlement agreement and a statement of no desire for punishment, indicating that the victim did not wish to see the client punished.

The attorney handling the theft punishment defense submitted these documents and requested leniency, arguing that the victim likewise did not wish to see the client punished.

The attorney handling the client's defense argued that the client's prior theft record was from 20 years ago.

The client had committed a similar wrong about 20 years earlier while struggling with financial hardship, but at the time the client showed deep remorse and has not committed any offense since.

The attorney emphasized that the client was not a habitual offender and that there was no risk of reoffending.