In brief
Four different prosecutorial decisions in Korea are all translated loosely as “the case was dropped.” Only one of them — 기소유예, a suspended indictment — is issued on the footing that the prosecutor regards involvement as established.
A suspended indictment is not part of 전과기록, the criminal record in the narrow sense defined by Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Criminal Sentences. It sits in a separate dataset, the investigation record (수사경력자료).
For an offence whose statutory maximum is below two years, a “no suspicion” disposition is deleted immediately, while a suspended indictment is retained for five years (Article 8-2(2)3).
Among the lawful grounds for querying that data, the Act expressly names the case where it is needed to decide on a foreign national’s naturalisation, restoration of nationality, or permission to stay (Article 6(1)6).
The person who received the disposition cannot challenge it by prosecutorial appeal: Article 10(1) of the Prosecutors’ Office Act gives that right only to the complainant and the informant.
The call from the prosecutor’s office is usually short. The case against you has been closed. You do not need to come in again.
Most people put the phone down and treat the matter as finished. Some months later they apply to extend their stay or to change their visa category, and learn for the first time that “closed” exists in several versions in Korean law, that the version is written on the disposition notice as a specific term, and that the term decides whether anything remains in a government database and whether an immigration officer will see it. By then, the periods within which the disposition could have been contested have usually run out.
What follows sets out how those decisions differ, what is stored and for how long, who may lawfully request it, and what all of this means for a foreign national’s residence status in Korea.
Four decisions that sound identical in English
The decision not to send a case to court belongs to the prosecutor. Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act sets out the principle of discretionary prosecution: the prosecutor may decide not to institute a public prosecution, taking into account the matters listed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act — the offender’s age, character, intelligence and environment; the relationship to the victim; the motive, means and result of the act; and the circumstances after the act.
But “not sending it to court” can rest on entirely different reasons, and the notice records that reason as a defined term. Three of them mean that involvement was not established, or that prosecution was impossible in principle. The fourth means the opposite.
| Disposition | What it means | Is involvement treated as established? |
|---|---|---|
| 혐의없음 — no suspicion | The elements of the offence are absent, or involvement was not proved | No |
| 죄가안됨 — not a crime | A ground excluding unlawfulness or culpability applies | No |
| 공소권없음 — no right to prosecute | A procedural condition for prosecution is missing; the decision is formal | Not examined on the merits |
| 기소유예 — suspended indictment | The prosecutor regards involvement as established but, on the Article 51 factors, decides not to send the case to court | Yes |
The difference is not terminological. It governs what remains in the databases, whether the decision can be contested at all, and how it reads to the authority that will later decide on residence status.
Why a suspended indictment is not an acquittal
The clearest illustration comes from a case in which one person tried to overturn two decisions arising from the same investigation.
The situation the Constitutional Court examined can be summarised as follows. On one count — threatening a spouse with a dangerous object — the prosecutor issued a suspended indictment. On another count in the same case — assault — the prosecutor issued a decision of no right to prosecute. The person subject to both decisions applied to the Constitutional Court to have both annulled, arguing that they infringed his right to equality and his general freedom of action.
The facts are set out in generalised form on the basis of the published decision. No identifying details of any client of this office appear in this article.
The Court split the two. It dismissed the challenge to the no-right-to-prosecute decision as inadmissible, holding that such a disposition “is no more than a formal disposition to the effect that prosecution is impossible without any need to determine whether there is a suspicion of crime, and therefore does not establish that the applicant is suspected of the offence,” with the result that no disadvantage to his legal position arises and the application is improper (Constitutional Court of Korea, decision of 31 August 2022, Case No. 2021Hun-Ma636, referring to its decision of 25 June 2013, 2013Hun-Ma378).
The challenge to the suspended indictment, by contrast, was examined on the merits — and rejected. That sequence is the point. A suspended indictment can be reviewed on the merits precisely because it does record that involvement was found; a no-right-to-prosecute decision cannot, because it records nothing about involvement at all. The proposition that a suspended indictment is not an acquittal is therefore not a law firm’s framing. It follows from how the Constitutional Court treats the two dispositions differently.
The standard the Court applies when it does reach the merits is narrow. It intervenes where the investigation was markedly contrary to justice and equity, where there was a serious error in constitutional interpretation, application of law or assessment of evidence that affected the disposition, or where the disposition was arbitrary to a degree warranting constitutional review. The Court applied the same standard, and again rejected the application, in its decision of 27 June 2025 (2022Hun-Ma1197).
Where the record goes, and how long it stays
The Act on the Lapse of Criminal Sentences (Act No. 19515, in force 6 July 2023) divides the material into two datasets, and the division matters more than most people expect.
Article 2 subparagraph 5 defines criminal record data (범죄경력자료) as, among other things, the imposition or remission of a sentence of a fine or heavier — and, expressly, a suspended sentence (선고유예). Article 2 subparagraph 6 defines investigation record data (수사경력자료) as material on sentences lighter than a fine, non-referral decisions by judicial police officers, and prosecutorial decisions not to indict, excluding whatever falls under criminal record data.
Article 2 subparagraph 7 then defines 전과기록 — the criminal record in the narrow sense — as the register of sentenced persons, the roll of sentenced persons, and criminal record data. Investigation record data is not included.
So a suspended sentence, which is a court decision, appears in the criminal record data. A suspended indictment, which is a prosecutor’s decision, does not. It is filed in the other dataset instead — and Article 8-2 governs how long it stays there.
Article 8-2(1) lists the dispositions whose investigation record data is to be deleted, including a prosecutor’s decision of no suspicion, not a crime, no right to prosecute, or a suspended indictment. Article 8-2(2) then sets the retention period, running from the date of the disposition or of finality.
| Statutory maximum for the offence | Retention of investigation record data |
|---|---|
| Death, life imprisonment, or a maximum term of 10 years or more | 10 years |
| A maximum term of 2 years or more | 5 years |
| Anything below that | Deleted immediately — but with exceptions: 6 months for a police non-referral decision, and 5 years for a suspended indictment and for final judgments and rulings under Article 8-2(1)3 and 4 |
The sharpest contrast sits in the bottom row. For a minor offence, someone who receives a no-suspicion decision has the entry deleted at once. Someone who receives a suspended indictment for the same kind of offence has an entry that remains for five years. Both were told the case was closed.
Article 8-2(3) provides a separate regime for juveniles within the meaning of the Juvenile Act, under which a suspended indictment is retained for three years rather than five.
Who may lawfully look it up
Access is not open. Article 6(1) permits inquiry and reply only in the ten cases it enumerates, and then only to the minimum extent necessary.
Two of those grounds matter here. Subparagraph 4 covers an application by the person concerned, where it is needed to confirm the contents or is required for entry into or permission to stay in a foreign country. Subparagraph 6 covers the case where the data is needed to decide on the naturalisation, restoration of nationality, or permission to stay of a foreign national.
That subparagraph is the reason this subject is not academic for foreign residents. The statute itself contemplates the immigration authority as a lawful requester.
The balance of the provision runs the other way. Article 6(2) to (4) prohibits disclosure of the data, acquisition of it for purposes other than those permitted, and use of it for such purposes; Articles 9 and 10 attach criminal penalties. An employer, a landlord or a private counterparty has no lawful route to this data, and the Act treats an attempt to obtain it as an offence in its own right.
What it means for residence status
Two provisions of the Immigration Act (Act No. 20992, in force 23 January 2026) work in different ways, and conflating them is the most common source of misunderstanding.
Article 46(1)13 lists, as a ground for deportation, a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without labour or a heavier penalty and released. A suspended indictment is not the imposition of a sentence, so on the face of the provision it does not fall within that ground.
Article 46(1)3 operates differently. It applies where a ground for entry prohibition under Article 11(1) is discovered or arises after entry — and it does not require any sentence at all. Article 11(1)3 and 4 are framed in terms of a substantial reason to believe there is a concern that the person will act in a way harmful to the interests or public safety of Korea, or to the economic order, social order or good morals. Separately, Article 84(1) requires public officials to report without delay where they discover a person falling under any subparagraph of Article 46(1), or a person considered to be in violation of the Act.
What none of this settles is the outcome in an individual case. Whether these provisions are invoked at all, and with what result, turns on the offence, the disposition, the person’s status and history, and the assessment of the authority concerned. This article describes the statutory structure; it does not predict how a particular application will be decided, and no article can.
Whether the disposition can be contested
Here the ordinary route is closed. Article 10(1) of the Prosecutors’ Office Act (Act No. 18861, in force 10 September 2022) grants the right of prosecutorial appeal against a decision not to indict to the complainant or the informant. The person against whom the suspended indictment was issued is not among them — which is why someone who wants the record to reflect that involvement was never established cannot simply appeal upward within the prosecution service.
What remains is a constitutional complaint under Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (Act No. 21452, in force 12 March 2026), on the footing that a public authority’s exercise of power infringed a basic right. Three features of that route should be understood before anything else:
Representation is not optional. Article 25(3) provides that a private party may not file or conduct proceedings without appointing a lawyer as representative, unless the party is a lawyer. This is an admissibility requirement, not a recommendation.
The periods are short. Article 69(1) sets 90 days from the day the party became aware of the cause and one year from the day it arose, with a different rule where other remedies were exhausted first.
And the review standard, as the two decisions above show, is narrow. A constitutional complaint against a suspended indictment is not a second bite at the evidence; it is a challenge to the disposition itself on limited grounds. Whether a given disposition is worth contesting at all, and on what basis, depends entirely on the file and is a matter to assess with a lawyer rather than from an article.
Key points
“The case was dropped” is not one outcome in Korean practice. The term on the disposition notice determines everything that follows.
A suspended indictment is not a conviction and does not enter 전과기록 — but it is not a finding of innocence either, and for a minor offence it stays in the investigation record for five years where a no-suspicion decision would have been erased at once.
The immigration authority is named in the statute as a body that may lawfully query that data in relation to naturalisation, restoration of nationality, or permission to stay. Employers and private parties are not.
The person subject to a suspended indictment has no prosecutorial appeal. The remaining route runs to the Constitutional Court, requires a lawyer as a condition of admissibility, and is bound by short periods that begin running immediately.
Frequently asked questions
Is a suspended indictment a criminal conviction in Korea?
No. A suspended indictment is a prosecutor’s decision not to send a case to court under Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act; there is no trial, no verdict and no sentence. It is also not a finding of innocence. The prosecutor issues it on the basis that involvement is regarded as established but that the factors in Article 51 of the Criminal Act make prosecution unnecessary.
Will a suspended indictment appear on a Korean criminal record certificate?
It is not part of 전과기록 as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Act on the Lapse of Criminal Sentences, which covers the register of sentenced persons, the roll of sentenced persons and criminal record data. A suspended indictment is classified as investigation record data under Article 2 subparagraph 6 and is held in that separate dataset. A suspended sentence imposed by a court is treated differently and does fall within criminal record data under Article 2 subparagraph 5(a).
How long does a suspended indictment stay on file in Korea?
Under Article 8-2(2) the period runs from the date of the disposition and depends on the statutory maximum for the offence: 10 years where the offence carries death, life imprisonment or a maximum of 10 years or more; 5 years where it carries a maximum of 2 years or more; and otherwise immediate deletion, subject to an express exception under which a suspended indictment is retained for 5 years. For juveniles within the meaning of the Juvenile Act, Article 8-2(3) sets 3 years.
Can my employer or landlord in Korea find out about a suspended indictment?
They have no lawful route to it. Article 6(1) of the Act on the Lapse of Criminal Sentences confines inquiry and reply to ten enumerated cases and to the minimum necessary scope, and Article 6(2) to (4) prohibits disclosure, acquisition for other purposes and use for other purposes, with penalties under Articles 9 and 10. Immigration is a different matter: Article 6(1)6 expressly covers data needed to decide on a foreign national’s naturalisation, restoration of nationality or permission to stay.
Can I appeal a suspended indictment issued against me?
Not by prosecutorial appeal. Article 10(1) of the Prosecutors’ Office Act gives the right to appeal a decision not to indict to the complainant or the informant, and the person subject to the disposition is not included. The available route is a constitutional complaint under Article 68(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, for which Article 25(3) makes representation by a lawyer a condition of admissibility and Article 69(1) sets periods of 90 days and one year. The review standard applied in decisions such as 2021Hun-Ma636 and 2022Hun-Ma1197 is a narrow one.
Related reading
If the underlying case involved driving, the interaction between the disposition and residence status is set out in more detail in DUI in Korea for foreigners: penalties and visa consequences. On the position where a case is still open rather than closed, see exit bans during a Korean investigation. For a first-response overview of the investigation stage itself, see assault charges in Korea as a foreign national.
If you have received a disposition notice and are not certain which of the four decisions it records, or how it sits against a residence application you are planning, you can send the basic facts to our office and we will tell you what the notice actually says.
Fees are not published as a fixed schedule because the work involved varies considerably between cases; we confirm the scope and the fee before anything begins.
This article is general information on Korean law as at the date of writing and is not legal advice on any particular matter. Statutory provisions cited: Act on the Lapse of Criminal Sentences (Act No. 19515), Criminal Procedure Act, Criminal Act, Prosecutors’ Office Act (Act No. 18861), Constitutional Court Act (Act No. 21452), Immigration Act (Act No. 20992). Reading a disposition notice against an individual’s residence history requires the file itself; nothing here should be relied on as a prediction of outcome.
