Suspension of Indictment in Package Theft Case Involving Delivery Mistake

Taeshin Law Firm represented a foreign client who was reported to the police after mistakenly receiving another person's delivered package and later failing to return it immediately. The client believed the situation had resulted from confusion because the delivery label showed the client's residential address and the client had been receiving many packages at the time. Although the client denied any intent to steal, the case presented legal risk because the client had received property belonging to another person and did not return it after being asked to do so. The defense team advised the client to take a practical approach, helped the client reach a settlement with the complainant, submitted mitigation materials, and ultimately secured a suspension of indictment.

Background / Issue

The client was a foreign national who became involved in a criminal investigation after receiving a delivered package that belonged to another person. The client had ordered items online at the request of a foreign friend. The items were delivered to the shared package storage area of the client's residence, and the friend was supposed to collect them later. However, when the package arrived, the client mistakenly took possession of it. After receiving a delivery notification, the friend discovered that the package was no longer in the storage area and asked the client what had happened. When the package was not returned, the matter was reported to the police. The client explained that the delivery label showed the client's residential address and that the client had been receiving many packages at the time, which caused confusion. The client did not believe there had been any intention to steal another person's property. Although the client believed the incident was a mistake, the case still presented criminal risk. Under Korean criminal law, even if a person initially receives property by mistake, refusing to return it after becoming aware that it belongs to another person may be treated unfavorably during an investigation. Because the client had received property belonging to another person and the complainant had requested its return, simply denying all allegations could have increased the risk of criminal punishment and a permanent criminal record. This was especially important because the client was preparing for an academic program and was concerned that any criminal record could cause future immigration, school, or career-related problems.

Our Legal Approach

Taeshin Law Firm reviewed the facts and explained to the client that, even if there had been no initial intent to steal, it could be difficult to prove the client's inner intention during the investigation. The defense team also explained that the failure to return the package after the complainant requested it could be viewed negatively by the authorities. Rather than taking a purely denial-based approach, the defense team persuaded the client to take responsibility for the practical situation and focus on resolving the case in a way that would minimize criminal consequences. The defense strategy included: explaining that the incident began from confusion regarding the delivery address and multiple packages; emphasizing that the client did not initially intend to steal another person's property; advising the client to avoid an unnecessarily aggressive denial strategy; communicating with the complainant and working toward settlement; using appropriate procedures, including criminal mediation, to persuade the complainant; collecting mitigating materials; and submitting a legal opinion to the prosecution requesting leniency and non-prosecution.

Result / Outcome

The prosecution issued a suspension of indictment. As a result, the client avoided a formal criminal trial and avoided a criminal conviction in Korea. For foreign nationals in Korea, even a seemingly minor misunderstanding involving property can lead to a criminal investigation. Delivery package disputes, lost property issues, and mistaken possession cases can become serious when the property is not returned promptly after the owner requests it. This case shows the importance of responding carefully, reaching settlement where possible, and presenting the facts in a way that reduces the risk of criminal punishment.