South Korea Extradition Law โ€” Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving South Korea โ€” Requested and Requesting State

๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ท

South Korea

South Korea Extradition Law & Case Law โ€” 6 cases

3
As requested
state
3
As requesting
state
Case Law
Extradition and double criminality: factual correspondence is enough (no need for same legal classification)
โœ•
Summary
For the purposes of granting extradition, in order to satisfy the requirement of double criminality it is not necessary that the abstract structure of the offence under foreign law corresponds exactly to a provision under Italian law. It is sufficient that the same conduct constitutes a criminal offence in both legal systems, irrespective of any differences in legal classification or in the applicable penalties. In the present case, extradition was requested on the basis that the person concerned had displayed and used credit cards of which he was only apparently the holder, and had also affixed forged signatures on sales receipts. It is clear that such conduct, as described, amounts under Italian law to both the offence provided for by Article 55 of Legislative Decree No. 231 of 2007 and the offence of fraud.
18/07/2017 ยท Italian Supreme Court ยท 39014/2017
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡นItaly โ†’ ๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ทSouth Korea
GrantedExtradition
Extradition granted following retrial assurance for in absentia conviction
โœ•
Summary
South Korea requested the extradition of one of its nationals to serve a fifteen-year sentence for fraud after his appeal had been dismissed in absentia while he was residing in China. Before referring the request for judicial examination, the Supreme Peopleโ€™s Court obtained an assurance from South Korea that the requested person would receive a retrial in his presence following extradition. The Court also found that the conduct underlying the request constituted offences under the laws of both States and that more than six months of the sentence remained to be served. It therefore approved the lower courtโ€™s finding that the statutory and treaty conditions for extradition were satisfied.
02/04/2007 ยท Supreme Peopleโ€™s Court of the Peopleโ€™s Republic of China ยท (2006๏ผ‰ๅˆ‘ๅผ•ๅญ—็ฌฌ2ๅท โ€” (2006) Xing Yin Zi No. 2
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ณChina โ†’ ๐Ÿ‡ฐ๐Ÿ‡ทSouth Korea
Granted with conditionsExtradition
Country Contributor
Aaron Hwang
Seoul Law Group
Aaron Hwang is Principal at Seoul Law Group. He previously served as Partner at CHS Law Firm and Daan Law Firm, Associate at SJ Law Firm and Lee & Lim Law Office, and Law Clerk at US Nevada Legal Services Inc.
He is a member of the Korean Bar Association (KBA) and the Seoul Bar Association (SBA). He is Director of the Registration and Auction Bar Association of the KBA, a member of the Labor Bar Association of the KBA, a member of the Debt Collection Bar Association of the KBA, and a member of the Immigration Service Agency Committee by Seoul Immigration Office. He is also included in the Korean Attorneys List of the US Embassy, serves as a Supreme Court-Appointed Defense Attorney, Legal Consultant at the Seoul Global Center, Statutory Auditor of YG Development Inc., and Certified Agent of the Korean Baseball Organization.
He holds a Juris Doctor from Kyunghee University in Seoul, Korea, and a B.A. in Law from Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea.
His awards and appointments include a Letter of Appointment as Legal Expert Counselor at the Seoul Global Center, Legal Advisor at the Seoul Global Center, Member of Seoul Sexual Harassment and Violence Committee, Director of the Registration and Auction Committee of the Korea Bar Association, a certificate of specialty registration in divorce law, and a letter of appointment.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving South Korea

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact โ†’