1. The Client’s Crisis

Client A (A boy) had been subjected to ongoing bullying by his upperclassmen at school. Then he became involved in an aggravated theft case led by those upperclassmen. A had only been assigned to deliver a box at their direction and did not even know that the box contained jewelry. However, aggravated theft is a serious offense carrying a heavy sentence, and since A had in fact transported the item, the situation was grave. His guardian immediately sought out Law Firm Jeonjae, where they had previously received counseling.

2. Key Issues

There were two major difficulties in this case. First, it was true that A had participated in the theft "act" itself. By physically delivering the box, there was room to view him as having been involved in the execution of the theft outwardly. Second, even though he was a minor, aggravated theft committed jointly by two or more persons (Article 331, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act) is subject to heavier punishment than ordinary theft, so simply expressing remorse would not be enough to expect a favorable outcome.

3. Jeonjae’s Strategy

Attorney Park Jeong-eun quickly took action from the very beginning of the investigation by the authorities. In juvenile cases, the more proactive the initial response, the more directly it affects the outcome.

First, she accompanied A personally when he appeared at the police station and helped him remain psychologically stable. If a minor becomes intimidated or frightened during an investigation, he may fail to explain his situation properly, so by accompanying him, the attorney enabled A to clearly convey the circumstances at the time and his own position.

At the same time, she prepared a supporting statement and strongly argued the following: that A had been bullied by those upperclassmen for a long time; that he had only delivered the box out of fear of further bullying, without knowing what was inside; that after learning jewelry was inside, he suggested to the upperclassmen that it be returned to the victim; and therefore that criminal intent for theft could not be established.

4. Outcome and Recovery

The investigative authority accepted the argument that A had no intent to steal and closed the matter with a non-booking (no suspicion) disposition. While all of the upperclassmen involved in the incident were found to have committed aggravated theft and were forwarded to the prosecutor’s office, A was the only one who received a no-suspicion decision. A was able to return to daily life without any prior protective disposition record.

Attorney in Charge: Attorney Park Jeong-eun

For the protection of confidentiality, this case has been partially de-identified within a scope that does not compromise the essence of the matter.