The Research overview 

 This study aims to collect and disclose data from empirical research on sources such as investigation and trial records and interview surveys through the Statistical Information on Crime and Criminal Justice System (CCJS) for six major crimes: murder, robbery/larceny, sexual violence, fraud, embezzlement/breach of trust, and assault/injury. This year, the first year of the project, the characteristics of crimes and criminals were analyzed through an examination of sentencing records and by means of an offender survey for robbery and larceny crimes. An additional analysis was conducted of the method of the crime and the selection of the crime target, which are the main issues related to robbery and larceny. 

Research trends related to robbery and larceny 

 The trend of previous empirical studies on robbery and larceny was examined by dividing them into domestic and foreign studies. Domestic research encompassed studies on the actual occurrence of robbery and larceny, the characteristics of crimes or offenders, and the effectiveness of recidivism prevention programs. Studies on the criminal justice process for robbery and larceny were also carried out, emphasizing the importance of initial investigations and analyzing factors affecting sentencing. In addition, studies uating various strategies for preventing robbery and larceny and the effectiveness of CCTV were conducted. In research on specific robbery and larceny techniques, discussions on the criteria for selecting the area and target of the crime and investigative agencies' criteria for classifying robbery and larceny were examined. In overseas research, several studies examined the decision-making process behind committing robbery and larceny by focusing on rational choice. Discussions on movement for crime and the selection of location were also carried out empirically, revealing that perpetrators typically moved short distances and committed crimes in familiar places. Criteria considered important in choosing a crime target, such as the CRAVED model, were examined. This study found that discussions on crime transfer and crime suppression centering on CCTV have taken place in recent times.

Characteristics of robbery and larceny crimes

 From the investigation of sentencing records, a total of 1,065 cases of sentencing were extracted, including 545 robbery and 520 larceny cases, through sampling based on the distribution of crimes of robbery and larceny for which sentences were given during the six years from 2015 to 2020. To standardize the variables, the variables used in the first project were adopted, and the names of concurrent offenses, reasons for sentencing, whether to recover financial damage, and the method of crime (intrusion/non-intrusion) were added. These data were built into a database through coding based on the codebook. For the classification of crime types, considering the similarities in the number of cases and characteristics, robbery was reclassified into five categories: robbery/quasi-robbery, special robbery, robbery injury/robbery-murder, hostage-robbery, and robbery-rape; larceny was classified into four types: larceny, special larceny, other, and larceny rape. A comparison of robbery and larceny crimes in terms of case and disposition characteristics is as follows. Among robbery crimes, robbery injury/coercion (35.2%) and special robbery (31.0%) were the most common, while for larceny crimes larceny crime (74.5%) and special larceny crime (17.1%) were the most common. The concurrent rate of robbery crimes is higher than that of larceny (robbery 61.8%, larceny 36.7%), and the number of concurrent crimes is also high (two or more: robbery 65.9%, larceny 49.2%). For both crimes, a greater number of different types of concurrent crimes were committed than the same type of concurrent crimes (robbery 52.7%, larceny 23.0%). Among the different types of concurrent crimes, the most common charges were fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust for robbery and other crimes for larceny. With respect to the same type of concurrent crimes, the most common charge was special robbery for robbery and larceny crime for larceny. In both robbery and larceny, a sentence of fixed-term imprisonment as a result of the first trial was the most common (73.7% for robbery and 43.1% for larceny). In terms of length of sentence of imprisonment, more than 1 year to less than 3 years (42.4%) was the highest sentencing for robbery, whereas less than 1 year (59.7%) was the highest for larceny. This indicates that the crime of robbery is punished more severely. Regarding the offender's arrest, both robbery and larceny had the highest rates for immediate on-sight arrest and reporting by the victim. The sum of the two rates was 82.6% for larceny and 67.2% for robbery. Thus, in the case of robbery, the rate of reporting by a third party was relatively high. Regarding perpetrator-specific clues, there were many cases of CCTV, black box and crime-related photos, captures, and videos for both robbery and larceny. In the case of extenuating circumstances in the examination of an offense, the rate of admitting to the crime and reflecting on it was high and similar for both robbery and larceny. In addition, there was no significant difference in the ratios of agreement with the victim, slight victimization of the victim, and efforts to recover damage such as compensation for damage. Further, the most common reason for recognition as an aggravated crime due to unfavorable extenuating circumstances was repetitive crime for both robbery and larceny. Both robbery and larceny are often a one-man crime, though the rate of cases with accomplices was higher for robbery, at 29.4%, compared with larceny, at 14.6%. Thus, robbery involved more accomplices. Moreover, larceny had a higher rate of one accomplice, whereas robbery had a higher rate of two or more accomplices. However, in terms of the role of the accomplice, both robbery and larceny had a higher rate of co-leaders than principal or accomplices (robbery 56.3%, larceny 59.2%). The average number of victims per incident for robbery was 1.24 and that for larceny was 1.76, a similar level for both The comparison of robbery and larceny in terms of perpetrator and victim characteristics yielded the following. The rate of ex-convicts as robbery offenders was 53.0%, while that as larceny offenders was 45.8%. Robbery involved more ex-offenders and larceny more first-time offenders. Regarding the type of crime committed only by ex-convicts, robbery had a high rate of different types (83.2%) and larceny a high rate of same type (81.7%), showing a notable difference. The percentage of offenders with physical disabilities or mental illness was 14.4% for robbery and 6.3% for larceny. The rate of adaptation or behavioral problems was 9.0% for robbery and 4.6% for larceny. Compared with larceny offenders, robbery offenders have more problem characteristics such as disability, disease, and adaptation and behavioral problems. There were far more female robbery victims (80.1%), while the male to female ratio for larceny victims was fairly even (53.0% male and 47.0% female). The number of victims was evenly distributed across all age groups for both robbery and larceny. In particular, the proportions of those in their 20s and 50s were higher for robbery, whereas the proportions of those in their 40s and 50s were higher for larceny. As for the occupation of victims, the most common was salesperson for robbery and manager for larceny. A large number of robbery and larceny cases (from the victim's point of view) were committed by a non-acquaintance of the victim; this percentage was higher for larceny (86.6%) than for robbery (78.3%). In robbery cases, half of the victims resisted (55.5%), but most of the larceny victims offered no resistance (98.2%). The percentage of victims recovering all or a part of their financial damage was similar, with 64.5% for robbery and 69.8% for larceny.

 Comparison of robbery and larceny crimes in terms of offense characteristics yielded the following. Both robbery and larceny were most often committed in the victim's residence/place of work, for which larceny (45.%) had a higher rate than robbery (36.2%). In addition, street, parking lot, shopping mall, and accommodation were found to be the main scenes of the crime. Many robbery and larceny crimes occurred at night (robbery 46.9%, larceny 40.6%). Other than that, the rate of occurrence in the afternoon, morning, or early morning was high. The most common method of approaching a victim was invasion of a house (robbery 35.5%, larceny 59.7%); besides that, attract had the highest rate for robbery, followed by wait or follow and attack and threatening, intimidation, and violence. For larceny, the highest rates were for carelessness and lack of monitoring, deceit, and accidentally committed crime while the victim is walking on the street, in decreasing order. In terms of the financial gains of the offenders from robbery and larceny, cash was the greatest, followed by miscellaneous goods, electrical/electronic/computer, and credit card. The average monetary gain per case was KRW 12.73 million for robbery and KRW 1393.8 thousand for larceny. The rate of disposal of stolen property was 33.3% for robbery and 46.2% for larceny. The rate of physical damage to victims was 44.0% in robbery, but there was no such case in larceny; instead, there was a preponderance of cases without threat or assault (96.6%). The duration of how long offenders are involved in criminal activities is longer for larceny than for robbery. Robbery is mostly one-off (96.7%), but one-off larceny shows a lower percentage (70.4%). In terms of the duration of the crime, robbery averaged about 38.3 days, while larceny averaged 90.73 days. Robbery and larceny both often occur deliberately, but the rate is 49.6% for robbery and 65.7% for larceny. Thus, larceny has a higher rate of planned crime. Conversely, 62.5% of robbery cases involved the use of an instrument, compared with only 22.4% of larceny cases. The crime tools in robbery were often knives, ropes, and clubs, compared with tools, bags, and vehicles/motorcycles for larceny. Items in possession before robbery and larceny or items that were on site were commonly used. Among robbery offenders, 12.5% drank alcohol at the time of the crime, compared with 4.0% for larceny. For both robbery and larceny, the rate of committing crimes for living expenses was the highest (robbery 48%, larceny 44.0%). For both types of crime, the entrance most used for intrusion was a door, followed by windows and walls. For non-intrusive robbery, street robberies, extortion, and luring robbery were common, while for non-intrusive larceny, shoplifting, in-vehicle larceny, pickpocketing, snatching, and trick larceny were the most common. After committing a crime, 63.4% of robbery offenders and 69.3% of larceny offenders showed an attitude of admitting to the crime and confessing or reflecting, and 95.3% of robbery offenders and 95.7% of larceny offenders admitted to all or a part of the charges.

Psychological characteristics of robbery and larceny criminals

 To analyze the characteristics of robbery/larceny criminals, a survey was carried out focusing on convicts confined to correctional institutions and subjects of probation. Data from a total of 809 surveys were retrieved from 10 prisons and 20 probation offices. Of these, a total of 785 responses were used for analysis, after excluding 24 with low response reliability. In Section 4, among the contents of the survey, the sociodemographic and psychological characteristics of robbery/larceny offenders were analyzed. Regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of the survey subjects, the average age of robbery offenders was 45.4 years, and that of larceny offenders was 42.5 years; the mean age of larceny offenders was thus slightly lower than that of robbery offenders. By age group, most commonly robbery offenders were in their 50s (33.3%), but larceny offenders were mostly distributed in their 20s (22.8%) and 40s (22.8%). In terms of educational background, 80.9% of robbery and larceny offenders had graduated from high school or higher, and only 1 out of 5 respondents had a spouse in marriage and co-residence. Overall, 67.1% of robbery and larceny offenders reported having no physical disability or mental illness at the time of the crime, whereas 32.9% indicated that they had. The disabilities or diseases reported were mainly depressive disorder (14.8%), affective disorder (5.9%), and alcoholism (5.1%). Forty-one percent of robbery offenders had an average monthly household income of less than KRW 2 million, while among larceny offenders, this proportion was 47.6%, almost half of the cases. By occupation, 30.7% of robbery and larceny offenders were unemployed at the time they committed the crime. In particular, more than half of the larceny offenders were unemployed (36.9%) and simple laborers (18.4%), having lower job security than robbery offenders. In terms of the growth environment of robbery and larceny offenders, 60.6% of robbery and larceny offenders were raised by their biological parents; 55.3% responded that they had a harmonious relationship with their primary caregiver, while 22.4% responded that they had a conflict with their primary caregiver; 61.4% of all robbery larceny offenders responded that they had good friendships during their growing up period. Robbery offenders (64.6%) perceived friendship more positively than did larceny offenders (59.5%). Regarding family circumstances while growing up, 87.6% of robbery and larceny offenders responded that their family circumstances were below average; 38.9% of all robbery/larceny offenders experienced domestic violence victimization and/or witnessed domestic violence while growing up. It was found that robbery offenders (43.9%) had more experiences of witnessing domestic violence compared with larceny offenders (35.9%). More than half (57.1%) of domestic violence victims/witnesses experienced physical violence. Delinquent behavior was common during adolescence, such as smoking, drinking, unauthorized absence, and running away from home. Robbery offenders reported more delinquent behavior than did larceny offenders. More than half of the robbery/larceny offenders had been arrested by the police for delinquency or crime as a teenager. More robbery offenders had experienced arrest during adolescence compared with larceny offenders. Overall, 71.1% of robbery/larceny offenders had a prior criminal record, and larceny offenders (75.8%) had a higher rate of criminal convictions than did robbery offenders (63.7%). Among both types of offenders, 44.3% had convictions for the same type of crime, while 14.1% had convictions for different types of robbery and larceny; 28.0% had different types of criminal records besides robbery or larceny. Overall, larceny offenders had a higher rate of convictions for the same type of crime, and robbery offenders had a higher rate of convictions for different types of crime.

 Regarding the age at which the first robbery and larceny crime occurred, 41.7% had first committed robbery and larceny in childhood and adolescence and 30.8% in their 20s. On average, people were found to have committed their first robbery and larceny crimes in their mid-20s, but by age group, 72.5% of robbery and larceny offenders had already committed a robbery or larceny before their 20s. The average age at first legal disposition was the mid-20s; 72.5% had received legal disposition for the first time in their 20s.Regarding the psychological characteristics of robbery and larceny offenders, overall the psychological characteristics of robbery offenders were interpreted as being more positive than those of larceny offenders. Robbery offenders had a higher level of self-control, subjective well-being, better perspective-taking ability, and lower level of depression compared with larceny offenders. In a rough comparison conducted by Kang et al. (2021) of the psychological characteristics of robbery and larceny offenders with those of sexual assault offenders, the former were found to have a weaker overall psychological state compared with the latter.

 Older age, lower level of education, and lower average monthly household income were associated with more criminal convictions for robbery and larceny. The worse their relationship with their primary caregiver or friendship when growing up, the more likely they were to be convicted for robbery and larceny. For robbery offenders, the number of robbery and larceny convictions was higher when their biological parents were not caregivers, they had a difficult family situation, and they witnessed domestic violence while growing up, which was different from larceny offenders. In adolescent misconduct, property misconduct was found to be related to the number of robbery and larceny convictions. Experience of being arrested by police during adolescence was also related to the number of robbery and larceny convictions.

 This survey used a retrospective question method. Since the respondents were requested to respond to questionnaires under the supervision of correctional officers in prisons and probation offices, there is a possibility of response distortion due to concerns about unfavorable treatment when responding to crime-related facts such as accomplices. In addition, the generalization of the survey results using the non-probability significant sampling method is limited. Nevertheless, the study tried to overcome these limitations by surveying a large sample of 785 cases.

Robbery and larceny crime policy issues: Criminal method and choice of targe

 The following is a summary of the results from the analysis of the responses to the questions on crime method and crime target selection among robbery and larceny criminals in prison and on probation.  

 For the method of crime, three factorsintrusion, accomplice, and personal 330 주요 범죄의 실태 및 동향 자료 구축(Ⅱ): 강·절도범죄 larceny for larcenywere considered. Approximately 3443% of respondents reported intrusion robbery and larceny. More than 50% of the cases of intrusion robbery and larceny were opportunistic crimes that involved conspicuous opportunities at the time or occurred in places easy to break into or enter. An overall 32.3% of robbery and 20.8% of larceny cases were found to have been conducted with an accomplice. Similar to the location selection of intrusion robbery and larceny, more than half of all respondents reported committing the crime without prior preparation or planning. Opportunistic crimes were found to be more prent than premeditated crimes. There was no difference in crime planning or preparation according to criminal history (previous conviction). That is, overall, robbery and larceny were found to be more opportunistic than planned and prepared. Expectations of the expected profit from the crime or the success of the crime were not high overall. This seems to be because most were opportunistic crimes. However, it was found that the expectation of the outcome of the crime was uated positively when there was an accomplice. There was a difference between robbery and larceny in this respect: robbery with an accomplice had high expectation of profit from the crime and high likelihood of not being arrested, while in cases of larceny with an accomplice, the likelihood of success of the crime was rated highly.

 Previous studies relatively consistently reported proximity and intimacy as important factors in the selection of the choice of location for robbery and larceny. In fact, this study found no significant tendency to commit a crime near one's residence. Further, responses that the crime was committed more than 1 hour or more than 3 hours away from the perpetrator's residence by car constituted about 36% of the total. Accordingly, distance attenuation, whereby the possibility of committing a crime in a place far from one's residence is significantly reduced, was not observed. That is, contrary to the theory of movement for crime (JTC), there was no tendency to choose a particularly more intimate location or one close to one's place of residence as the crime location. However, there was a difference in proximity and intimacy to the crime location according to the presence or absence of an accomplice. Compared with single offenders, those with accomplices tended to move farther from their residence or choose unfamiliar places for the crime.

 Analysis of opinions on the ease of invasion/crime and crime targets found the following characteristics. First, in the case of residential facilities, differences were observed in the uation results for ease of entry by type. The protective power of apartments/officetels was higher, especially on high floors. Second, the uation of the ease of intrusion was different for each security vulnerability. Overall, there was a tendency to perceive that a place with an open door or a place without CCTV was easy to break into. There was a difference in the perception of security factors between robbery and larceny criminals. For robbery, natural surveillance or crime deterrence by people who pass by was rated high, while for larceny the crime deterrence of double-glazed windows and streetlights was highly uated. Third, regarding the uation of the ease of crime for various targets, they tended to perceive crimes against drunken people as being relatively easy, while crimes against people they knew were rated as being much more difficult. Furthermore, they perceived that it is easier to commit crimes against socially and environmentally vulnerable people, such as people living alone or drunk, than against physically vulnerable people such as women, the elderly, and children. Robbery offenders tended to be more likely to commit crimes against the physically and socially vulnerable than were larceny offenders. Offenders with a history of intrusion robbery considered a crime against a person living alone to be easier to commit at a higher rate than did those without a history of intrusion robbery. Lastly, opinions on the characteristics of objects preferred by property offenders showed that a preference for ease of disposal, concealment, and profitability was stronger, while a preference for universality or entertainment was relatively low. In particular, it was found that the preference for ease of disposal, profitability, and concealment was higher when there was a criminal history (conviction).

 Overall, a very strong positive trend was found for the effectiveness of CCTV. The rate of those who give up a crime completely if there was CCTV was found to be higher than of those who delayed the crime or changed their method. In addition, overall, the possibility of arrest due to CCTV was perceived as high. There was a difference such that robbery criminals perceived the crime deterrence power of CCTV more strongly compared with larceny criminals. However, there was no difference by the presence or absence of accomplices, the method of crime, or criminal record.