Analysis of Theft and Robbery Crimes in the Local Regions During the Reign of King Sejong of Joseon

This paper statistically examines the nature, significance, and recognition of theft and robbery crimes, and the occurrence of theft and robbery criminals in the 8 provinces during the reign of King Sejong of Joseon.The crime of theft, which involves stealing valuable property belonging to others, was judged by the local magistrates or relevant government offices of the Ministry of Punishments. However, if the theft was accumulated to the third time, it became a serious crime punishable by death, and the king made the final decision on the sentence. There were some thieves, who had been granted a reduction or pardon by the king after committing theft three times, went on to commit theft four or more times. Regardless of the number of offenses, some thefts such as resistance to arrest or stealing property from the royal court or government offices were treated as serious crimes requiring the king’s decision on sentencing. The resistance to arrest included the one not only against officials but also against the general persons, including the owners of stolen goods. The robbery refers to the act of taking another person’s property through force or threats, or such criminal acts in general. Fundamentally, both robbery and theft are the same in unlawfully taking another’s property. However, during King Sejong’s reign, theft and robbery were strictly distinguished in investigation and judgment. The definition of robbery was rather broad in Sejong’s era. Cases in which a criminal committed murder or other crimes while seizing a victim’s belongings were also classified as robbery. In addition, the instance where an official used his power to seize another person’s property was also recognized as robbery.Sejong argued that the theft was an act committed by people driven into poverty under extreme conditions such as famine and that, therefore, thieves and robbers belonged to different categories. On the other hand, officials such as Shin Gae and Ahn Sung-seon claimed that the same individuals committed either theft or robbery depending on the amount of property stolen and the circumstances at the time of the crime. They did not distinguish between thieves and robbers, referring to both as “bandits”, and asserted that the bandits were originally ruffians, with no correlation between the famine and the occurrence of banditry. It is difficult to determine whether thieves and robbers were distinct entities or whether theft and robbery were merely different crimes committed by the same individuals. Although the occurrence of theft during Sejong’s reign was closely related to famines, all the thefts might not arise due to famine. However, it is clear that those who became robbers, for whatever reason, could no longer exist as normal members of Joseon society.During the reign of King Sejong, in the whole country excluding Hanyang, there were a total of 727 cases of robbery and 83 cases of theft. Robberies outnumbered thefts by a ratio of approximately 9：1. There may be several reasons for this, but one likely explanation is that thieves were primarily farmers driven to crime due to extreme circumstances, and their rate of repeat offenses significantly declined after the situation. As a result, the number of three-time repeat offenders discussed in the royal court decreased accordingly. Gyeonggi-do and Gangwon-do exhibited the crime patterns similar to the national average for both theft and robbery. In Jeolla-do, the robbery rate was slightly lower than the national average, but the theft was more serious than in other regions. Hwanghae-do had an extremely low theft rate, but its robbery rate was slightly above the national average. Gyeongsang-do had a slightly higher theft rate than the national average, but its robbery rate was only about one-fifth of the national average, making it the most stable region in terms of public security among the eight provinces. Pyeongan-do was the only region where both the robbery and theft rates were higher than the national average. Notably, nearly half of all robbery cases nationwide occurred in Pyeongan-do, making its robbery rate approximately three times higher than the average of the 8 provinces. This indicates that Pyeongan-do had the most unstable public security, with particularly severe violent crime issues.According to the analysis on the state of robbery crimes in the 8 provinces, Gyeonggi-do had no particular stronghold for robber groups, and public security was relatively stable across all districts. In Chungcheong-do, regional disparities in robbery occurrences were greater than in Gyeonggi-do, and especially Cheongyang, Cheongpung, and Hoein were the areas with the highest robbery rates. In terms of robbery, Gyeongsang-do was the safest province among the eight, but Hadong, located on the border between Jeolla-do and Gyeongsang-do, as well as Sunheung, on the border between Gyeongsang-do and Chungcheong-do, had relatively high robbery activity. In Jeolla-do, the primary strongholds of robber groups were the areas around Jangheung, Changpyeong, and the Gobu-Heungdeok region. Hwanghae-do had a relatively widespread occurrence of robbery cases compared to the total number of incidents. The populous areas of Hwangju and Haeju had a relatively high number of robbery crimes, but in terms of population ratio, Eunyul and Ongjin were the regions where robbery crimes were most severe. In Gangwon-do, the main strongholds of robbery groups were Geumseong-Hoeyang and Wonju. In Pyeongan-do, there was a significant disparity in robbery crime rates among different districts, and certain areas suffered severe robbery problems. The most active robbery regions in Pyeongan-do included Yonggang, Kangseo, Jeungsan, and Yeongyu in the western and northwestern areas of Pyeongyang, Sangwon to the south of Pyeongyang, and Jasan and Eunsan to the northeast. Additionally, Cheolsan, Seoncheon, Yongcheon, and Gasan were key areas for robbery activity. In Hamgil-do, no specific locations served as strongholds for robber groups, and it is noteworthy that the robbery crime rate in Hamgil-do was significantly lower than in Pyeongan-do, despite they were adjacent to each other.