What is the theft?
What is theft?
We still have a long way to go.
This time, let’s take a closer look at theft itself.
What does theft mean?
Taking something that isn’t yours.
Correct.
Then what is robbery?
Whether through threats or actual physical contact, it would generally mean taking property by using force or threats.
There is already a significant difference between the two.
But…
The question I wrote above, “What is theft?”
Taking something that isn’t yours.
Is that really enough to explain theft?
Legally, theft is viewed a little differently.
Because the law is the standard by which cases are judged, it must be designed to consider various circumstances together so that unfair judgments can be avoided.
First of all, Korean law defines theft as
“a person who takes another person’s property”
under Article 329 of the Criminal Act.
That isn’t much different from the “taking something that isn’t yours” I mentioned above.
But once we get into the details, things become a little different.
What is required for theft to be established?
Simply taking an object does not automatically mean that the crime of theft is established in every situation.
Generally, when determining whether theft has occurred, the following elements are considered.
- It must be property belonging to another person.
- The property must be taken against the will of the person who possesses it.
- The person must have the intention of permanently making the property their own, known as the intent to unlawfully appropriate the property.
- If the elements of another crime, such as violence or threats, are present, another offense, such as robbery, may apply instead of theft.
Didn’t number 3 already make you go, “Huh?”?
So someone steals something,
“No, that’s not what happened. I only intended to use it temporarily because I was in a hurry. I was going to ask for permission, but the owner wasn’t there.”
Does that mean a legal dispute could arise?
That is certainly one way to look at it.
And the answer is,
Yes, it can.
If someone makes such a claim, the issue eventually becomes whether the person had the intent to unlawfully appropriate the property, and a dispute may arise that requires the actual circumstances and various pieces of evidence to be considered together.
In other words,
“They took someone else’s property.”
does not mean that every case is automatically judged in exactly the same way.
The circumstances surrounding what the person’s intention was when taking the property,
as well as what objective circumstances can support or contradict that intention, are considered together.
You may not even know what “intent to unlawfully appropriate” means. But does this really happen often?
You might ask that.
Let me give you an example.
A car is exactly the kind of property where this situation can easily arise.
With just a key, someone can use another person’s property worth tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of won.
Now suppose the person says this:
“I wasn’t trying to steal it. I was just using it for a little while.”
“If I had intended to steal it, I would have already run far away. Do you think I would have been driving around in circles nearby?”
It sounds like this could lead to a legal dispute, doesn’t it?
If a dispute even arises over whether it was theft or not, the owner of the car would understandably feel extremely wronged.
That is why the law has a separate provision specifically addressing automobiles.
Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicles and Other Property
Taking such situations into account, Article 331-2 of the Criminal Act, the offense of unlawful use of motor vehicles and other property, is separately established.
For certain means of transportation specified by law, including automobiles, the law allows a person to be punished separately for using the property temporarily without the rights holder’s consent, even if there was no intention to permanently take away ownership.
In other words,
“I wasn’t planning to steal it. I just wanted to use it for a little while.”
does not mean that someone can simply use another person’s car as they please.
This is where theft and unlawful use of a motor vehicle and other property are distinguished.
Theft concerns the act of taking another person’s property,
while unlawful use of a motor vehicle and other property separately addresses the temporary use of an automobile or other property without the rights holder’s consent,
even when there is no intention to make the property one’s own.
As you can see, the law does not simply treat every situation as
“You took it = automatically theft.”
Instead, it does not lump every situation into a single crime.
Even when the same act of taking a car is involved, the legal judgment may differ depending on the person’s intention when taking it,
how it was used,
and which legal requirements are satisfied.
| Crime | Criminal Act | Statutory Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Theft | Article 329 | Imprisonment for up to 6 years or a fine of up to KRW 10 million |
| Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicles and Other Property | Article 331-2 | Imprisonment for up to 3 years, a fine of up to KRW 5 million, detention, or a minor fine |
The punishment is lower than that for theft.
But this provision was created to deal with people who try to take advantage of such loopholes in the law.
What do you think?
Does “if you took someone else’s property, then it’s theft” seem a little less straightforward now?
This time, let’s take a look at how Asian countries interpret theft.
| Country | Basic Standard for Theft | Impact of Property Value on Legal Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| 🇰🇷 South Korea | Taking another person’s property constitutes theft | No minimum monetary threshold for ordinary theft |
| 🇯🇵 Japan | Taking another person’s property | No separate monetary threshold for ordinary theft |
| 🇹🇼 Taiwan | Taking another person’s movable property with the intent to unlawfully appropriate it | No minimum monetary threshold for ordinary theft itself. Punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment, detention, or a fine of up to NT$500,000 |
| 🇨🇳 China | Taking public or private property | The value is directly used in determining whether theft falls into the categories of “relatively large,” “huge,” or “especially huge” amounts |
| 🇻🇳 Vietnam | Taking another person’s property | VND 2 million or more is the basic threshold for criminal liability. Theft involving less than VND 2 million can also constitute a crime under certain circumstances |
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan basically start from a similar approach to theft.
If a person takes another person’s property and the legal requirements for theft are proven, the crime of theft can be established.
But when we move to China and Vietnam, things become somewhat different.
The value of the property becomes an important factor in determining the legal classification and punishment for theft.
In a way, that makes sense.
After all, it seems reasonable to punish someone more severely when they steal property of a high value.
But there is an important point here.
South Korea, China, and Taiwan can also impose different punishments depending on the amount of the theft loss.
So simply saying
“Punishment depends on the amount.”
is not particularly unusual.
In South Korea as well, the amount of the loss can be an important factor considered during sentencing.
What I find interesting is that some legal systems have created separate standards for dealing with theft involving small amounts of property.
Because, as I mentioned earlier,
when the value of stolen property is high, the scale of the damage can already be considered when determining the level of punishment or sentencing.
There is no need to explicitly state that.
Then why create a separate standard in the first place?
“When a person steals property of a small value, we will deal with it differently under certain conditions.”
That can be seen as a legislative judgment reflected in the law.
Of course, saying simply that “small-value theft is forgiven” could be an overly broad interpretation.
But small-value theft is, at least, something for which the circumstances are considered first…
Come on..
It’s the law, after all. Surely it doesn’t really work that way?
What is the standard for theft in Vietnam?
Article 173 of Vietnam’s Criminal Code regulates this matter in considerable detail.
Basically, criminal provisions for theft apply when a person takes property worth VND 2,000,000 or more.
At the current exchange rate, that is roughly around KRW 100,000.
Of course, there is an important point that should not be misunderstood.
Stealing property worth less than VND 2 million does not mean that it is not theft.
Even property worth less than VND 2 million can result in criminal liability when certain conditions are met.
For example,
- The person has previously received an administrative penalty for an offense involving property
- The person has previously been convicted of a relevant offense
- The act has adversely affected social order or safety
- The stolen property is an important means of livelihood for the victim
- The stolen property is a relic, antique, or similar item
In such cases, theft involving less than VND 2 million can also be subject to criminal punishment.
So, if we simplify the Vietnamese standard, it is not
“If it is less than VND 2 million, it is not theft.”
Rather, it is closer to
“As a general rule, stealing property worth VND 2 million or more falls within the basic threshold for criminal liability,
while theft involving less than VND 2 million can also result in criminal liability under certain conditions.”
That is a more accurate way to put it.
Vietnam’s Criminal Code also provides for progressively higher levels of punishment as the value of the stolen property increases.
In particular, it distinguishes amounts of VND 50 million or more, VND 200 million or more, and VND 500 million or more.
Now let’s return to the lower amounts.
There is one interesting point here.
For cases that do not fall under any of the conditions above,
when the offender is a first-time offender and the stolen property is worth less than VND 2 million,
there is a structure under which the person may avoid criminal liability depending on the circumstances.
Of course, South Korea also has systems under which factors such as being a first-time offender or restoring the victim’s loss can be considered during an actual trial and sentencing.
But,
there is a significant difference between having such conditions explicitly written into the law from the beginning and simply hearing that the actual judicial system takes those circumstances into account.
I find these differences quite interesting when comparing the laws of different countries.
China’s theft law further divides the amounts
China also uses the value of the property as an important factor in theft cases.
Under China’s relevant judicial interpretations, theft is divided into different levels according to the value of the property stolen.
RMB 1,000–3,000 or more
→ A relatively large amount
RMB 30,000–100,000 or more
→ A huge amount
RMB 300,000–500,000 or more
→ An especially huge amount
However, China allows individual regions to establish specific application thresholds while taking their local economic circumstances into account.
Therefore, the amounts above should not be understood as a single set of numbers that automatically applies in exactly the same way throughout all of China.
The important point is that in China, the value of the stolen property is explicitly established as an important factor in determining the level of the crime and the severity of punishment under the law.
Just by looking at the single crime of theft
What do you think?
Even with something as simple as theft, neighboring countries can have such different interpretations and approaches to handling it.
In South Korea, ordinary theft is defined in the form of “a person who takes another person’s property,”
while Vietnam has established a basic threshold for criminal liability as well as exceptions for theft involving small amounts.
China also divides the level of the crime and punishment according to the value of the stolen property.
It is the same act of “stealing someone else’s property,”
yet
where to draw the line for criminal punishment,
how to deal with theft involving small amounts of property,
and how to increase the punishment when the value of the loss becomes large
are all matters that differ from country to country.
I think comparing crime rates between countries is certainly useful,
but I have also come to think that examining how each country views the particular crime is an equally important task.
Because there are things that cannot be seen by comparing numbers alone.
Let’s wrap this up.
Before we finish, let’s take a look at what South Korean thieves actually steal.
So how much do thieves in South Korea actually steal?
| Value of Loss | Percentage |
|---|---|
| No loss | 5.3% |
| KRW 10,000 or less | 13.6% |
| More than KRW 10,000 – up to KRW 100,000 | 32.2% |
| More than KRW 100,000 – up to KRW 1 million | 36.0% |
| More than KRW 1 million | 12.8% |
| Total | 100% |
The largest proportion is in the range of more than KRW 100,000 and up to KRW 1 million.
It is 36.0%.
And theft involving more than KRW 10,000 and up to KRW 100,000 accounts for 32.2%.
Together, these two ranges account for 68.2%.
When we think of theft, we may naturally imagine someone stealing something worth millions or even tens of millions of won,
but the actual statistics show that a significant proportion of theft involves relatively small amounts of property.
If we expand the range to losses of KRW 1 million or less, the proportion rises to 81.8%.
So where do all these small-value theft cases actually happen?
Supreme Prosecutors’ Office of Korea, 「2024 Crime Analysis」 — Statistics on the Locations of Theft Offenses in South Korea, 2024
| Location of Theft | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Stores | 26.4% |
| Other | 25.4% |
| Streets | 25.3% |
| Residential areas | 12.6% |
| Entertainment establishments | 4.3% |
| Financial institutions | 1.3% |
| Offices | 1.2% |
| Lodging facilities · bathhouses | 1.2% |
| Transportation | 2.3% |
| Total | 100.0% |
The combined share of stores, other locations, and streets alone is 77.1%.
You could think of it as meaning that theft involving losses of KRW 1 million or less, which accounts for 81.8% of all cases,
takes place in stores, other locations, and on the streets in 77.1% of cases.
It makes a little more sense now why it was so difficult to actually see a thief.
Let’s finish with a slightly sad story.
This time, I would like you to take a look at the age distribution of theft offenders in South Korea.
When you look at those numbers, you may find yourself thinking something different from simply
“Hmm.. so that’s how it is.”
Because within those numbers,
there may be people who are someone’s father,
and people who may be someone’s grandfather.
Then what drove the older theft offenders represented in these numbers to the point of committing a crime?
Isn’t that something worth thinking about?
Of course, statistics alone cannot tell us why an individual committed theft.
Whether it was because of financial hardship,
because they needed to make a living,
or because they were professional thieves
cannot be determined from the numbers alone.
But at the very least, the numbers shown in South Korea’s age-based statistics on theft offenders are worth taking a closer look at.
| Age | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 or younger | 14,203 | 2,500 | 16,703 (16.5%) |
| 19–30 | 9,969 | 3,471 | 13,440 (13.3%) |
| 31–40 | 7,829 | 2,982 | 10,811 (10.7%) |
| 41–50 | 8,667 | 3,848 | 12,515 (12.4%) |
| 51–60 | 10,871 | 5,546 | 16,417 (16.3%) |
| 61 or older | 18,666 | 12,410 | 31,076 (30.8%) |
| Total | 70,205 | 30,757 | 100,962 (100%) |
