This study examined actual conditions of crime victim of children in low income family at exploration level and investigated countermeasures. At first, the study investigated existing discussions of the crime victim, for instance, children maltreatment at home, crime victim out of home, and effects of crime victim.
The study made questionnaire based on studies on existing studies, and examined actual conditions and factors of children crime victim and effects of crime victim. The subject was 1,650 elementary school children at Seoul in their 4th to 6th year, that is to say, 657 children in low income family and 993 children at common family. The survey was done from August 30, 2011 to September 15, 2011.
The findings were as follow:
Firstly, parents of children in low income family got married (60%), while the ones of children in common family did (90%). Parents of children in low income family were divorced, died, separated and remarried (30%). Children in low income family had family activities, parents' monitoring and attachment with parents less than the ones in common family had. Children in low income family suffered from father's frequent drinking and parent's violence more than children in common family did. 20% of children in low income family had poor academic records, and most of children in low income family had lower academic records than children in common family had. Children in low income family had attachment with teachers and affirmative school atmosphere less than children in common family had. Children in low income family had attachment with friends less than children in common family had. Children in low income family had residential area stability and community integration less than the ones in common family had. Children in low income family had unstructured routine activity such as wandering more than children in common family had. Children in low income family had lower family, school, friends, residential area and routine activity than the ones in common family had.
Secondly, the children suffered from maltreatment at home and difficulties out of home. Not only children in low income family but also children in common family experienced physical abuse, psychological abuse at home (10%), and did neglect (less than 10%). Not only children in low income family but also children in common family suffered from bullying from friends and/or senior students and junior students (10%) out of home. Those children experienced not only violence from senior students, junior students and unknown persons but also theft and burglary (less than 10%). Children in low income family experienced other types of abuses than emotional abuse more than children in common family did. However, neglect, and violence from friends or junior students and senior students had statistically significant difference. The children in low income family suffered from losses and damages more often than the ones in common family did, regardless of types of losses and damages. And, neglect, theft and violence from unknown person had statistically significant difference.
Thirdly, low income children had some characteristics of victim. 1) For low income childrens, gender had no relation with crime victim, while the ones in common family had significant difference depending upon gender at five kinds of victim except for neglect and theft/burglary. Therefore, children in low income family should be given care and attention to protect them from losses and damages regardless of gender. 2) For low income children. school characteristics had relations with violence of friends, senior students and junior students, while school characteristics had no relation with losses and damages of the violence among common family children. Therefore, children in low income family should be given care and attention to protect them from losses and damages of the violence. 3) Low income children's attachment with friends had relations with friends' bullying and violence, while the ones in common family had no relation. Therefore, not only attachment with teachers but also attachment with friends could protect children in low income family from losses and damages. 4) The children in low income family's father violence had relations with five kinds of losses and damages except for neglect and violence from unknown persons, while physical abuse and emotional abuse only had relation with father's violence among common family children. On the other hand, drinking frequency of mother of children in low income family had no relation with all kinds of losses and damages of children in low income family, while that of children in common family had relation with emotional abuse and neglect. This was because mothers of children in common family often reared their kids than the ones of children in low income family did. 5) Bullying and violence victim from friends, senior students and junior students of not only children in low income family but also children in common family had relations with offending.
Fourthly, losses and damages of the victim varied depending upon types. The children in low income family suffered from physical abuse and emotional abuse from father at home, while children in common family did from mothers. And, children in low income family did not say other abuses at home than emotional abuse to another person more than children in common family did. The children in low income family did not say to other persons at higher rate than the ones in common family did because the former thought of no use of saying regardless of types of the abuse. The children in low income family thought of helplessness of the abuse. The children were given bullying and violence from friends, senior students and junior students out of home regardless of income level. The children in low income family were given bullying and violence from two or more of bullies more often, while more than half of children in common family were done from one bully. The children were given bullying and violence at streets of village often regardless of income level, followed by streets around the school. The children in low income family were often stolen at classroom, while children in common family were done at streets in the village. The children in low income family were more injured because of violence than the ones in common family were done, and the former did not say injury to other persons at higher rates than the ones in common family did(excluding violence from other person).

The children's physical abuse and emotional abuse, neglect, bullying and violence from friends, senior students and junior students had significant difference at self-esteem, depression, anger, physical symptom, fear against the crime, and delinquent behavior depending upon injury and/or losses regardless of family income. Therefore, children who experienced injury and/or losses had low self-esteem, depression, anger, headache and other physical symptom, fear against the crime and delinquent behavior more than the ones who did not experience such things had. The violence from unknown person of children in low income family had significant difference at all of other items than self-esteem and delinquent behavior, and all of other items of children in common family than depression and delinquent behavior had significant difference depending upon injury and/or losses. Losses by theft of children in low income family had significant difference at all of items than self-esteem had significant difference depending upon losses by theft.
This study investigated prevention against crime victim of children in low income family in the United States, the UK and South Korea. This study suggested prevention against crime victim of children in low income family based on questionnaire survey as well as prevention against crime victim of children in low income family at home and abroad. At first, the study suggested protection based on home: Firstly, home visit shall help support low income family. Secondly, parents of low income family need to be educated.
Thirdly, parents having problems shall be given consulting service and treatment. Fourthly, relations between parents and children shall be strengthened. Fifthly, parents of poor home shall be given economic support.
The study suggested protection based on schools. Firstly, education welfare project shall be developed to help schools having children in low income family and to support the children. Secondly, affirmative school atmosphere shall be produced to protect children in low income family from violence.
Thirdly, schools that students have large social and economic inequality shall make efforts to prevent bullying. Fourthly, schools shall educate children to prevent them from suffering from losses and damages in accordance with Article 31 of revision of the Children Welfare Act.
Lastly, the study suggested protection based on the community: 1) Children in low income family in community shall be given help and assistance. 2) Safety in residential area of low income family shall be strengthened. To strengthen the safety, residents in community shall join safety project actively same as Safe kids project in the UK. 3) The crime victim of children in low income family shall be given supports. At first, victim shall be given welfare support, and children protection organization shall strengthen family function as well as psychological treatment. 4) An integrated service network shall be set up to protect and support children in low income family.