This article highlights a recent case result handled by Kang & Shin. What began as a routine drive escalated into a hostile roadside confrontation, and ultimately a criminal allegation of property damage in Seoul that could have affected our client’s professional career in law enforcement.
Legal note: In Korea, property damage (재물손괴) is a criminal offense under the Korean Criminal Act, Article 366, which provides that “a person who, by destroying, damaging, or concealing another’s property document or special media records, such as electromagnetic records, etc., or by any other means, reduces their utility, shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding seven million won.”
The Incident: A Traffic Dispute and Confrontation
While driving slowly on a narrow one-lane road, our client encountered an individual pushing a handcart loaded with cement bags. The cart blocked the lane. When our client (off duty) asked the individual to move and clear the road, the situation quickly escalated into verbal abuse and physically intimidating gestures.
During our client’s efforts to create enough space to pass by moving the handcart, two cement bags fell onto the pavement. Shortly after, the individual continued verbal abuse, and eventually told our client to “just go.” Not wanting to escalate the situation, our client proceeded forward in a confined roadway environment. As the vehicle passed, the corner of the cement bags was torn.
After the confrontation, the individual filed a criminal complaint for property damage against our client, and our client became the subject of a police investigation. The client then retained Kang & Shin to handle the matter and present a formal defense.
Defense Strategy: Three Pillars That Changed the Case
As an experienced criminal defense law firm in Korea, Kang & Shin challenged the charges using three core defense pillars:
A. Utility Impairment Was Not Clearly Established
We argued that minor tearing of outer packaging does not automatically mean the property’s utility was destroyed. The alleged items were construction materials intended for use, and the record did not clearly support that the cement itself became unusable solely because part of the outer bag was torn.
This mattered because “damage” in property criminal cases is not always just about appearance, it is often assessed by whether the property’s practical utility was materially impaired.
B. Dashcam Evidence and Visibility Constraints
We relied on objective footage (dashcam / black box) to explain what could (and could not) reasonably be seen from the driver’s seat in a narrow road environment.
In these situations, visibility is often affected by the vehicle’s perspective and blind spots, the tight clearance created by parked cars and oncoming traffic, and the heightened stress of a hostile confrontation.
Our position was straightforward. The evidence did not support the conclusion that our client clearly recognized the exact location and risk in a way that satisfies criminal intent.
C. The “Go Ahead” Gesture: Intent and Possible Justification
A critical fact was that the other party repeatedly signaled, albeit rudely, that our client should proceed forward. We explained that this was highly relevant to whether our client reasonably believed it was safe to proceed and therefore lacked the required criminal intent, and in the alternative, whether the circumstances supported a justification defense that could exclude unlawfulness under Korean criminal law.
Put simply, when the other party is actively telling you to “go,” in a confined road setting where maneuvering options are limited, that context can be decisive in evaluating both intent and unlawfulness.
The Result: A Full Clearance of Charges
After reviewing our written submission and the objective materials, the prosecutor issued a non-indictment decision. In substance, the prosecutor accepted our defense and came to the conclusion that:
- The dashcam footage did not clearly establish that the cement bags’ precise location was visible from inside the vehicle at the relevant moment.
- The victim’s gesture to move forward made it reasonable for the client to believe they could proceed without issue.
- The evidence was insufficient to prove the required mental element for property damage.
Notably, the investigating authorities initially referred the case to the prosecution with a recommendation that our client be charged. After reviewing our defense submission, however, the prosecutor issued a non-indictment decision.
Note: A non-indictment is a prosecutorial disposition (not a court judgment). In practice, it is often the most favorable outcome at the prosecution stage because it ends the case without an indictment. In other words, the prosecution will not pursue criminal charges because it concluded that there was no crime committed.
Why This Case Matters (Especially for Foreigners in Korea)
This case is particularly notable because our client was an active-duty police officer. Professionals who work in investigations understand the nuances of the law and choose their defense counsel carefully. When a member of Korean law enforcement turns to Kang & Shin for criminal defense representation, it reflects the trust placed in our criminal law practice in Korea.
For foreigners in Korea, it is crucial to work with a lawyer who can not only communicate fluent in English, but to work with lawyers who have strong criminal-law experience and can develop a clear defense strategy tailored to the facts.
Working with a Korean lawyer for foreigners who combines English fluency with criminal-law expertise helps ensure your side of the story is clearly understood, and that your defense is presented effectively from the earliest stage of the case.