KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Stealing from Your Parents Is Now a Complaint-Required Crime: Supreme Court Applies Reformed Family Theft Rule

By ,

Following a landmark constitutional ruling that upended how Korean law treats theft within families, the Supreme Court has clarified that crimes committed after the constitutional court’s decision must be treated as complaint-required offenses — meaning a prosecution cannot proceed if the victim family members withdraw their complaint before sentencing. Here are the key points.

Issue

Can a person be convicted of stealing from their parents if the parents have formally stated they do not wish to see their child punished, given the recent constitutional and legislative changes to the family theft exemption rule?

Background: The Old Rule and Why It Changed

  • Korean criminal law long contained a provision known as the “family theft exemption” (친족상도례) under Article 328(1) of the Criminal Act, which effectively shielded family members from prosecution for property crimes committed against one another.
  • The Constitutional Court previously declared this provision incompatible with the Constitution, finding that a blanket exemption — regardless of circumstances — was unjustifiable.
  • In response, the National Assembly amended the Criminal Act, replacing the blanket exemption with a complaint-required offense (친고죄) framework. Under this revised approach, family theft can still be prosecuted, but only if the victim family member affirmatively wishes to proceed with punishment.
  • The amendment took effect on December 31, 2025, and under the transitional provisions, applies to crimes committed on or after June 27, 2024.

Facts

  • Defendant A stole cash, gift vouchers, and a gold ring worth approximately ₩24 million from his parents’ home on December 10, 2024 — a date that falls within the amended law’s scope.
  • A also faced a separate theft charge involving two unrelated victims for about ₩4 million stolen in June 2025.
  • Before the first-instance verdict was handed down, A’s parents submitted a settlement agreement and a statement of non-punishment, indicating they did not wish to see their son prosecuted.

Lower Court Rulings

  • The trial court sentenced A to one year in prison in August 2025, reasoning that while the old exemption had lost its force, it would not wait for new legislation before proceeding. It also noted that A was in custody, was on probation for a prior conviction at the time of the offense, and that the non-family theft charges independently warranted timely punishment.
  • The appellate court reduced the sentence to eight months in December 2025, giving some weight to the parents’ wishes and A’s efforts to compensate the other victims — but still affirmed the conviction.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Criminal Division 1, presiding Justice Ma Yong-ju) quashed the appellate decision on February 26, 2026, and remanded the case to Suwon District Court.
  • The court held that because the amended Criminal Act expressly treats family property crimes as complaint-required offenses, and because A’s parents had filed a non-punishment statement before the first-instance verdict, the lower courts were obligated to dismiss the charges relating to the theft from the parents.
  • By proceeding to conviction on those charges anyway, both the trial court and the appellate court misapplied the law.

Key Takeaways

  • The amended Article 328(1) applies to all family property crimes committed on or after June 27, 2024.
  • Under the new framework, if the victim family member withdraws their complaint or submits a non-punishment statement before first-instance sentencing, the court must dismiss the prosecution — a conviction is no longer permissible.
  • This does not affect charges involving unrelated victims, which proceed under ordinary theft rules.

Why This Matters

This ruling provides critical procedural guidance on how courts must apply the newly reformed family theft provisions. For criminal practitioners, the takeaway is straightforward: in any family property crime case falling within the amended law’s scope, securing a non-punishment statement from the victim relative before the first-instance verdict is handed down can be outcome-determinative. Prosecutors and defense counsel alike should factor this into their strategy from the outset.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=218982&page=2&total=24958

Leave a comment