1. Overview of National Crime Victim Survey in 2018

A. Purpose
* National Crime Victim Survey is implemented every other year in order to investigate the extent and nature of both reported and unreported crime victimization cases, vulnerability factors contributing to criminal victimization, and public perception and attitude toward crime.
- Designated as ‘Approved Statistics No. 403001’ by Statistics Agency Dept., Korea National Statistical Office (KOSTAT)

B. Scope of Survey
* National Crime Victim Survey in 2018 is basically a replication of National Crime Victim Survey in 2016. However, special topic questions have changed (road rage and aggressive driving victimization > voice phishing experience), and several questions and answer choices have been revised for clarification.
* The Survey includes basic questionnaire (household representative /member) and incident-based questionnaire.
- Basic questionnaire: household composition, neighbor and neighborhood, routine activities and personal safety measures, personal background (length of residency, education, household monthly income, etc.), screening questions for crime victimization in the last year (2018), and special topic (voice phishing)
- Incident-based questionnaire: (crime incidents in 2018) incidents time and date, location, and mode of crime, physical injury, victim reaction, property loss, psychological damage, offender profile, and report to police and case status, etc.

C. Sampling design and Survey methods
* Target population: All households within the region under administrative power in the Republic of Korea at the time of the survey and members of the family over the age of 14
* Survey Population: All households and members of the family over the age of 14, within general enumeration districts (1) and apartment enumeration districts (A) of the 2017 Population and Housing Census
* Stratification and Sampling
- Stratified sampling (enumeration district): The first stratification divided the nation into 8 cities and 9 provinces. Sejong City and 9 provinces were further divided into townships (eup) and municipalities (myeon, dong). The last step selected a total of 610 enumeration districts from those townships and municipalities.
- Systematic sampling (11 households from each enumeration district)
* Weighting: design weight, nonresponse adjusted weight, poststratification weight
* Data Collection: door-to-door survey (either face-to-face interview or self-administered)
* Survey cycle: two years (odd number)
* Survey period: 5.30.2019 - 07.21.2019
* Sample size: 13,136 participants over the age of 14 from 6,704 households

D. Release
* Analysis results from National Crime Victim Survey are available in various formats such as a report, micro-data, statistics database, and info-graphic.
* Report: Korean Institute of Criminology: www.kic.re.kr > publication > report (Korean Crime Victim Survey in 2018)
* Micro-data
- Korean Institute of Criminology Statistics Portal(CCJS): www.crimestats.or.kr
- Korea Social Science Data Archive homepage: https://kossda.snu.ac.kr
- Census Bureau MDIS: mdis.kostat.go.kr
* Statistics database
- Census Bureau National Statistics Portal KOSIS: www.kosis.kr
- Census Bureau National Indicator System K-indicator: www.index.go.kr

2. Main Findings from National Crime Victim Survey in 2018

A. Time series analysis of national crime victimization trend
* [Increase in crime victimization rate due to a rise in violent victimization]
There were 1,653,877 victims from 1,675,662 incidents among 45,553,126 national population over the age of 14 in 2018. These figures are slightly higher than those in 2016 as population-based victimization rate records 3.63% and incident-based victimization rate records 3.68%.
The increase from 2016 to 2018 is mostly due to the rise in violent crimes. There were 1,408,004 victims (3.09%) from 1,417,708 (3.11%) incidents of property crime in 2018, which are similar to the rates in previous years. By contrast, there were 245,873 victims (0.54%) from 257,954 incidents (0.57%) of violent crimes, which records the highest rates since 2014.
* [Increase in sexual assault and bullying victimization] Aside from assault, three types of interpersonal crimes including robbery, sexual assault and bullying, recorded an increase in incident rate and victimization rate. It is speculated that the victims feel less intimidated than before to report the victimization to authority.

B. Voice phishing experience and victimization: comparison to 2008
* [Differential experiences of voice phishing] It is estimated that 8,309,002 people, which accounts for 18.24% of the national population over the age of 14 (45,553,126), reported that they received a call, text, or messenger message suspicious of voice phishing in 2018. Compared to 2008 when 27,697,328 people, which accounted for 71.67% of the national population over the age of 14 (38,647,220), reported to have received probable voice phishing calls, the amount of exposure to voice phishing has significantly declined. However, still many people are receiving voice phishing calls and messages.
While the entire population was exposed to the risk of voice phishing in 2008, particular subgroups of people who are in their 40s and 50s, married, office workers, service and sales, and home makers, average monthly household income at or higher than $3,000 tend to be more vulnerable to voice phishing.
* [Development in voice phishing victimization] Compared to 2008, 2018 witnessed a noticeable increase in “agency-impersonation”, where the offender fraudulently represents financial institution or government office. Cases involving misrepresentation of both financial institutions such as bank and law enforcement agencies such as police or prosecutors’ office account for 65.13% of all voice phishing incidents experienced by the national population over the age of 14 in 2018.
* [Escalation in voice phishing victimization rate] Advancement in voice phishing schemes that highlights targeting vulnerable population and utilizing high-tech financial transaction information results in an increase in victimization rate. Of those who were exposed to voice phishing, property loss occurred for 0.17% in 2008 and 0.21% in 2018.

C. Violent crimes and victimization
* [Diversification of location of violent victimization] While residential area or adjacent streets account for a quarter of all violent victimization, parking lot accounted for as much as 17.16% in 2018. Growing number of reports of harassment is reflective of 14.7% of victimization at public buildings, offices, and manufacturing factories, which was 6.56% in 2016. Meanwhile, the proportion of residence as a location of violent victimization substantially declined.
* [Absence of third party intervention during violent victimization] In 2018, 32.4% of all victims reported a presence of a third party at the scene of violent crime, 44.92% of these resulted in any form of damage to the third party, while the rest resulted in no damage. The finding suggests that a third party does not necessarily intervene in violent altercation between offender and victim.
* [Positive self-assessment of reaction at the time of victimization] Of all victims of violent crimes in 2018, 41.57% reported to have tried to protect themselves, while 58.43% reported to have not. Whether active or passive, those who reacted to the offender reported that their reaction contributed to deterring further victimization or limiting the amount of damage.
* [Aggravation of psychological damage from violent victimization] In 2018, 77.03% of victims of violent crime experienced frustration, low self-esteem, and depression, and 66.72% experienced fear from shock or anxiety attack. Insomnia, nightmare, and auditory hallucination were experienced by 44.47%, while 32.12% experienced loneliness or feelings of isolation. Also, a great number of victims reported to have experienced more than one of those psychological symptoms.

D. Property crimes and victimization
* [Post-event acknowledgement of property loss] A great deal of victims of property crime could not pinpoint when the incident took place. The sum of responses including “sometime during the day but cannot tell exactly what time”, “some time during the night but cannot tell exactly what time”, and “not sure whether it was during night time or daytime” accounted for 36.18% in 2012, 38.81% in 2014, 41.97% in 2016, and 51.5% in 2018.
* [Decline in loss recovery from fraud and theft] As much as 89.63% of fraud victims, which translates to between eight and nine out of 10 fraud victims, reported that they could not recover any of the monetary loss in 2018. Concerning property loss from theft, those who had no recovery of loss accounted for 84.52% in 2012, 89.9% in 2014, 90.66% in 2016, and 92.39% in 2018, which recorded the highest rate of all time. In the meantime, complete recovery of loss from theft was reported by 1.37% of theft victims in 2018, while 1.1% reported a partial recovery. Nevertheless, loss recovery from vandalism that is subject to a partial monetary recovery of loss through insurance coverage shows a different trend compared to the declining loss recovery rate pertaining to fraud and theft.
* [Profile of stolen properties: high portability and resale value] Bicycle and its parts accounted for the majority of stolen properties in 2018. Their portion of the stolen properties has recently been inclining, while the portion of cash, cashier’s check, and gift cards continue to decline.

E. Reporting of victimization to police and case status
* [Increase in reporting of violent victimization] Of all victims of violent crime in 2018, 32.6% reported their case to the police, which is the highest reporting rate since 2012. Specifically, 49.1% of robbery victims reported their case to the police.
* [Varying reporting rates across victimization types] while 32.6% of victims of violent crime reported their case to the police, only 21.71% of victims of property crime reported to the police. As for the reason of no reporting, 54.28% of property crime victims responded that it was because “loss was not substantial”.
* [Differential police response to varying victimization types] Police responses to reports of crime in terms of initial investigation and information sharing varied according to the types of victimization. Police responded to the scene following all reports of violent crimes in 2018. However, police responded to the scene for only 52.91% of property crime reports.
* [Varying levels of satisfaction with police response across victimization types]
Active response by police to reports of violent crime resulted in overall increase in the level of satisfaction with police response. The proportion of responses for dissatisfaction with police response to property victimization has been declining since 2012. However, it remains relatively high compared to only 2.8% of victims of violent crime were unsatisfied with police response.

F. Factors of vulnerability to crime victimization
* [Vulnerability of community environment] Those who reported that social disorganization was a serious problem appear to have a higher chance of being a victim of property/violent/break-in crime than others. Also, those who reported that physical disorder was at a serious level showed a higher rate of experiencing property and violent victimization than others who reported otherwise. Assessment of regional police services is confirmed to be a vulnerability factor of property victimization. Specifically, those who reported that police services are ineffective had a higher chance of experiencing property victimization than others who reported otherwise. However, social cohesion and collective efficacy did not a have statistically significant relationship with any types of criminal victimization.
* [Vulnerability of household characteristics] Household characteristics appear to have little significance as a vulnerability factor of criminal victimization.
Among other household characteristics, those who left the house empty more than others had more experience of violent victimization. And those who live in apartment were more likely than other types to experience residential break-in. No other household characteristic was statistically associated with property victimization.
* [Vulnerability of individual characteristics: socio-demographic characteristics]
When it comes to property victimization, females as opposed to males, and those with high school diploma or a higher degree appear to have a higher chance of property victimization. Among the victims of property crime, theft victimization was more likely in female (gender), single (compared to married or divorced/widowed). Fraud victimization was more likely for those with high school diploma or a higher degree and less likely for those in their 30s or older. This is reflective of growing amount of online fraud victimization. The fraud victimization rate was relatively low for the elderly population who has less accessibility to online medium such as Internet and smartphone. However, this line of research calls for future analysis.
Also, similar to theft victimization, males than females, and singles than married or divorced/widowed people were more likely to experience violent victimization.
* [Vulnerability of individual characteristics: routine activities and self control]
Property victimization was more likely for those who tends to put on luxurious line of clothing and those with low level of self-control. Regarding violent victimization, those who use public transportation more than five days a week, who return home after 10 pm either one or seven days on a weekly basis, and who return home heavily drunk about two or three days on a weekly basis were more likely to experience it. However, a caution should be taken as there were relatively small number of cases of violent victimization.
* [Year-by-year comparison of vulnerability factors] First, year-by-year comparison shows a steady decline in the amount of vulnerability factors at the local community level. Residents believe that both physical and social disorganization have consistently shown a downward trend (except for s small increase in social disorganization level from 2017 to 2018). They also believe that police capacity for crime control has increased, while neighbor relations in a community has slightly improved. This line of findings could be considered a positive trend that diminishes the vulnerability to crime victimization. Next, findings pertaining to the household level show that any given household takes four of the eight safety and protective measures predefined in the survey. Last, findings from the individual level could not detect any discernible trend in vulnerability factors.

G. Perception and fear of crime and preventive measures
* [Perception of crime] Similar to the past studies, an anticipation for an increase of nation-wide crimes was stronger than that for an increase of neighborhood crimes. In particular, as much as 51.6% of respondents reported that they believe the nation will see an increase in the number of crimes, indicating a growing concern for public safety.
* [Fear of crime] Fear of crime was analyzed for “agree” and “strongly agree” responses in each question. Regarding general fear, more people were “afraid of walking on neighborhood streets at night” (19.8%) than were “afraid to be home alone at night” (12.6%). People were more fearful of their spouses or children being victimized than themselves falling a victim of crime. In particular, as much as 45.5% of respondents were worried that their children could be victims of crime someday. Also, responses of “agree” and “strongly agree” on fear across varying types of crimes was in descending order of being frightful from residential break-in as the most, fraud, assault, sexual assault, theft, robbery, stalking, and vandalism as the least.
* [Crime preventive measures] Same as the findings from the 2017 study, more people took active measures of crime prevention (1.77) than passive measures (2.54).
* [major findings from year-by-year comparison] 1) There was congruency in annual trends between national victimization rate and public perception toward crime prence. Perception of a future increase in crime rate escalated from 2017 to 2019, which coincides with the trend in national victimization rate that was covered in Chapter 3. Specifically, overall victimization rate (property and violent) slightly increased from 2016 to 2018, which is similar to the trend in the public perception toward crime prence. The findings of increase in victimization rate and public belief in such an increase could contribute to pessimist view of the nation’s future such that it warrants a discussion on policy implication. 2) There was a contrast in trends between perception toward crime prence and public fear of crime. Public perception toward crime prence shows a decline from 2013 to 2015 and to 2017, and regressed back to the level of 2015 in 2019. However, fear of crime has steadily been in decline. Since the two sets of questions are based on respondents’ perception rather than past incidents, a further analysis is in order. 3) Both passive and active crime preventive measures did not present a noticeable trend across years. Nevertheless, more measures are taken at night when the chance of victimization is higher, which results in more occasions of passive than active measures against crime.

3. Utilization of Korean Crime Victim Survey and suggestions for advancement

A. Studies using Korean Crime Victim Survey
* [Data collection method] Review studies using Korean Crime Victim Survey since 2000 (scope of review was limited to quantitative analysis, while including methodological discussions), there were 78 journal articles, 3 research reports, 38 conference presentations, and 15 thesis/dissertation in Korea. In overseas, there were 7 journal articles and 2 thesis/dissertations.
* [Popular topic areas] Review of the outcome variables or topics across the publications reveal that studies were mostly about crime victimization (experience, reaction to victimization) and fear of crime (general, by crime type, and by type of victim). Others included public perception toward crime prence, confidence in police, methodological discussion, and quality of life.
* [Suggestions from the publications] Most studies offered suggestions such as adding more questions for more details and panel design for temporal order of variables. There was a concern for deficiency in the number of victimization cases. Some other studies suggested for the need to expand the survey population and improving upon the limitations in the survey methodology.

B. Suggestions for advancement in Korean Crime Victim Survey
* Regarding the survey design and structure, there is a need to consider raise the minimum age of respondents from 14 and above, while systematically conducting children and youth victimization survey on a more regular basis. Also, there is a call for improvement on measuring repeated victimization, as was suggested for the 5th Korean Crime Victim Survey (disclosure standards were not satisfied this time again), and improvement on survey questions. Concerning data collection method, tablet-based survey should be considered as a supplemental to paper-based survey, which requires a thorough scrutiny over the data collection process.
In addition, there is a need for panel study for a nation-wide victimization survey, and it would require a great deal of efforts in securing budget and personnel. Last, pertaining to the sharing and application of the survey data, there are conflicting paradigms at this time as there is heightened sensitivity for personal privacy whereas there is also a trend in data-driven research and evidence-based policy development. Therefore, a careful review and development of counterplan will be in order.