When Are Theft and Robbery Offenses Established, and How Are They Assessed?

Based on 48 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

The key issues in theft are whether property possessed by another person was taken against the possessor’s will and whether there was an intent to unlawfully appropriate it. For robbery and quasi-robbery, the purpose of the assault or intimidation and its temporal and spatial connection to the theft must be considered. The outcome may also depend on family relationships and the state of possession.

People involved → Property owner or possessor → Person taking property → Possible accomplice → Someone takes property or uses force around a theft → Was property possessed by another taken against their will? → Was there intent to unlawfully appropriate the property? → Was assault or intimidation linked to taking, or used during theft to resist recovery or arrest? → Theft may be established; a robbery-related offense may also apply → Theft or a robbery-related offense may not be established on these facts → Intent may exist without permanent keeping; later return alone does not defeat theft → Check family ties to both owner and possessor, their status then, and any accomplices → Check possession and whether the offense was complete; injury may count while resistance remains suppressed → Yes — Article 329 → No → Yes → Yes — Article 333 or 335 → Intent and later return → Family relationsh…

Key points

The basic act constituting theft is transferring property possessed by another person into the possession of oneself or a third party, against the possessor’s will. The fact that property was taken does not by itself determine whether the offense is established; the intent to unlawfully appropriate it must also be considered (Criminal Act, Article 329 (형법 제329조)).
Even without an intention to keep property permanently, an intent to infringe ownership or an equivalent proprietary right may establish an intent to unlawfully appropriate it. The fact that the property is later returned to the owner or that the owner benefits does not, by itself, negate theft (Cases 8, 10, and 15).
For special theft, the requirements for a jointly committed offense, including the sharing of execution of the offense, must be considered in addition to the existence of a plan. A participant who was not at the scene may be a co-principal if they can be regarded as having used the acts of those who carried out the offense at the scene as a means of carrying out their own intent (Criminal Act, Article 331(2) (형법 제331조 제2항); Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do321, May 21, 1998).
Robbery requires a connection between the assault or intimidation and the acquisition of the property. If, after an assault unrelated to taking property, the offender takes property by chance without the victim’s knowledge, robbery may not be established (Criminal Act, Article 333 (형법 제333조); Case 3).
Quasi-robbery is established when a thief uses assault or intimidation on the occasion of the theft for a purpose such as resisting the recovery of the property or evading arrest. If the offense was already over according to social norms, quasi-robbery may not be established even if the offender assaulted someone to avoid arrest (Criminal Act, Article 335 (형법 제335조); Cases 13 and 16).
Even where injury occurs after a theft, robbery resulting in injury may be established if the victim remains psychologically incapable of resisting and the offense has not yet reached completion. The outcome is not determined solely by the time or distance between the events (Criminal Act, Article 337 (형법 제337조); Case 19).
The family-relationship exception does not automatically apply whenever there is a family relationship. The relationship between the offender and both the owner and possessor of the property, their status when the offense occurred, and whether there were accomplices must be considered (Criminal Act, Articles 328 and 344 (형법 제328조·제344조); Cases 18 and 20).
According to the examples, copying information stored on a computer, using ordinary telephone communication services, and taking lost property on a subway before it has been found by a person responsible for managing it may respectively be regarded as not constituting theft or may be assessed as embezzlement of lost property (Criminal Act, Articles 346 and 360 (형법 제346조·제360조); Cases 5, 21, and 22).

Frequently asked questions

Q. Can a person be guilty of special theft even if they were not at the scene, after planning the theft with others?

It may be possible. Even if a person participated in the plan, the court considers whether there are indicia of principal-offender status—such as whether the person used the acts of those who carried it out at the scene as a means of carrying out their own intent. The fact of having participated in the plan alone does not determine the outcome.

Case 1

Q. Is it robbery if someone takes property without the victim’s knowledge after assaulting them?

The connection between the assault and the acquisition of the property is important. Robbery may not be established if the assault was not used as a means of taking the property and the offender did not take advantage of a state in which the victim’s resistance had been suppressed by the assault.

Case 3

Q. Does assaulting someone much later to avoid arrest after committing theft amount to quasi-robbery?

The key issue is whether the assault occurred on the occasion of the theft. Relevant considerations include whether the circumstances were sufficiently close in time and place to the scene of the offense, and whether, according to social norms, the theft had already been completed. Accordingly, quasi-robbery may not be established if the offense was already over.

Case 13, Case 16

Q. Can taking a vehicle with the intention of returning it to its original owner still constitute theft?

It may. If someone takes a vehicle owned by another person and possessed by someone else, against the possessor’s will, the intent to unlawfully appropriate the vehicle may not be negated merely because the act ultimately benefited the owner or the vehicle was actually returned.

Case 8, Case 10, Case 15

Q. Will I avoid punishment if I take property belonging to a family member or relative?

The relevant issues include whether the family-relationship exception applies to the relationship in question and what the relationship was when the offense occurred. The outcome may depend on whether the offender was related to both the owner and the possessor of the property, and whether the exception also applies to an accomplice.

Case 12, Case 18, Case 20

Q. Is taking a bag left on the subway theft?

The example explains that if a crew member or manager has not yet actually found the lost property and taken possession of it, the issue is embezzlement of lost property rather than theft. The outcome may depend on whether the person responsible for managing the location had actual control of the property.

Case 22

Q. Is copying computer files or using someone else’s telephone theft?

According to the example, computer data itself is not property for purposes of theft, and a telephone service provided for making calls is not property subject to physical control. Therefore, those acts alone do not constitute theft. However, taking the physical card itself, such as a telephone card, or conduct that satisfies the elements of another offense must be considered separately.

Case 5, Case 6, Case 21

Q. Can taking someone else’s property to submit it as evidence constitute theft?

In a case where property was taken for the purpose of submitting it as evidence, the intent to unlawfully appropriate it was not found, and theft therefore may not be established. The actual purpose and specific circumstances must be considered; the example is based on a finding that this purpose was established.

Case 25

Relevant laws

Criminal Act, Article 236 (형법 제236조)
Criminal Act, Article 328 (형법 제328조)
Criminal Act, Article 329 (형법 제329조)
Criminal Act, Article 330 (형법 제330조)
Criminal Act, Article 331 (형법 제331조)
Criminal Act, Article 333 (형법 제333조)
Criminal Act, Article 335 (형법 제335조)
Criminal Act, Article 337 (형법 제337조)
Criminal Act, Article 343 (형법 제343조)
Criminal Act, Article 344 (형법 제344조)
Criminal Act, Article 346 (형법 제346조)
Criminal Act, Article 347 (형법 제347조)
Criminal Act, Article 347-2 (형법 제347조의2)
Criminal Act, Article 348-2 (형법 제348조의2)
Criminal Act, Article 350 (형법 제350조)

Watch out for

Whether theft is established depends not only on ownership but also on who actually possessed or controlled the property when the offense occurred. Even if ownership was acquired through inheritance, the point at which actual control is established may need to be determined separately.
Where the family-relationship exception applies and withdrawal of a complaint is at issue, the example addresses withdrawal before judgment is pronounced by the court of first instance. The timing of withdrawal and the family relationship must be confirmed in each case.
The conclusions in the examples are based on the specific facts presented. The assessment may differ if details such as the connection between the assault and the theft, the state of possession, or the intent to unlawfully appropriate the property differ.
Laws and legal systems may be amended. Before applying them to an actual case, the current law and the specific facts should be checked separately.

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).