Short answer. Yes, in fraud cases it can. Under Article 25 of the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, a court convicting a defendant at first or second instance may, on its own initiative or on the victim’s application, order the defendant to compensate the direct property loss, medical expenses and consolation money caused by the offence. Fraud is within scope. But the court may decline for reasons the statute itself lists, and in fraud cases it frequently does, so this is a route worth using and not a route worth relying on alone.
What Korean law says
Article 25(1) provides that where a guilty verdict is to be pronounced in the first or second instance criminal trial for one of the listed offences, the court may, on its own authority or on the application of the victim or their heir, order compensation for the direct property damage, medical expenses and consolation money arising from the criminal act. The list in subparagraph 1 includes the offences in Chapters 38 to 40 of the Criminal Act, and fraud sits in Chapter 39, so fraud is covered by the provision on its face, not by analogy.
Article 25(2) goes further. Where the defendant and the victim have agreed an amount of damages, the court may order payment of that agreed amount, and this applies both to the listed offences and to offences outside the list.
Article 25(3) is the part victims are least prepared for. The court is not to make a compensation order where the victim’s name or address is unclear; where the amount of damage is not specified; where the existence or scope of the defendant’s liability is not clear; or where making the order would significantly delay the trial or is otherwise inappropriate for criminal proceedings.
Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, Article 25(1), (2) and (3). Act No. 21726, in force from 2 June 2026.
What usually happens in practice
The third of those grounds decides most fraud applications. A criminal court is deciding guilt, not adjudicating an accounting dispute, and where sums moved back and forth between the parties, or the loss has to be traced through several transfers, the court will often find the scope of liability not clear enough and leave the money to a civil court.
That is why the amount matters as much as the fact of the loss. An application supported by transfer records that tie to a single, specific figure is in a different position from one that asks the court to work out what is owed.
Three further points are worth knowing. The application must be made by the close of argument at first or second instance. A finalised compensation order, or one carrying a provisional execution declaration, has the same effect as an enforceable civil judgment for the purposes of compulsory execution. And where the application is dismissed or only partly granted, the applicant cannot appeal that decision and cannot make the same application again. A civil action is a separate procedure.
What you should do next
- Fix the figure before anything else. A single, documented amount is what makes an order possible.
- Apply in time. The application belongs in the criminal case while it is still running, not after judgment.
- Keep transfer records, messages and receipts organised by date and amount, not by narrative.
- If the case is factually tangled, plan for the civil route in parallel rather than discovering it after a dismissal.
- If a settlement figure has been agreed with the defendant, say so. Paragraph 2 exists for exactly that situation.
Related
Defrauded in Korea: why the criminal complaint comes first
Romance scam in Korea: criminal complaint and civil claim
Criminal defence lawyer in Korea
Fraud and financial loss answers
All Korean law answers
Full guide: Fraud cases in Korea
Tell us about your case
Send the facts and the stage your case is at. A Korean attorney reviews it and replies. No need to call first.
Written and reviewed by Soobin You, Attorney at YUSU Lawfirm. Former prosecutor. Last legal review: 12 September 2026.