Case Type: Trespassing, Special Property Damage 

Disposition: Fines Imposed (Defended Against Imprisonment) 

Case Details:

Case Overview and Legal Jeopardy

The client was indicted on charges of trespassing into another person's domicile and, in the process, carrying a dangerous weapon to damage property. The charge of Special Property Damage (Article 369, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act) carries a statutory penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine not exceeding 10 million KRW, while Trespassing (Article 319, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act) is punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine not exceeding 5 million KRW. Due to the concurrent nature of these offenses, the likelihood of a prison sentence was exceptionally high, and the prosecution formally requested a one-year prison sentence. Realizing the severity of the situation at a late stage, with only a short period remaining before the sentencing judgment, the client retained our legal counsel.

Legal Assistance and Defense Strategy

Neither Trespassing nor Special Property Damage constitutes an offense punishable against the victim’s will, meaning the charges cannot be automatically dismissed solely through a victim's forgiveness. However, pursuant to Article 51 of the Criminal Act (Conditions for Sentencing), the relationship with the victim and the circumstances following the offense are critical mitigating factors considered by the judiciary. Consequently, this office initiated a comprehensive sentencing defense within the tight timeframe before the ruling. We first advised and assisted the client in securing financing through institutional loans to establish a substantial fund for victim compensation. Despite the urgent schedule, we maintained continuous communication with the victim, successfully obtaining a formal settlement agreement and a non-punishment request just before the sentencing date. Moved by these authentic restitution efforts, the victim even directly requested clemency for the defendant from the court. Concurrently, we systematically structured and submitted the client’s deeply reflective statements along with petitions from acquaintances to emphasize the complete lack of recidivism risk.

Judicial Outcome

Notwithstanding the prosecution’s demand for a one-year prison term, the court strongly took into account the mitigating sentencing criteria presented by this office, specifically the substantive restitution, the execution of the settlement, and the victim's petition for non-punishment. As a result, the court forewent a custodial sentence and ordered the imposition of fines, allowing the client to avoid detention and safely return to civilian life. This matter serves as a significant precedent demonstrating that even at an advanced stage following a formal prosecution demand, a rigorous sentencing strategy combined with proactive settlement negotiations can fundamentally alter judicial outcomes.

Case Inquiry: Attorney Min-hoo Kim