Precedent No. 75/2025/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and published under Decision No. 339a/QD-CA dated December 25, 2025, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective court judgments and decisions regarding specific cases selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution No. 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:
– It contains value in clarifying legal provisions that have different interpretations; analyzes and explains legal issues and events; and identifies principles, handling orientations, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrates equity toward issues not yet specifically prescribed by law;
– It is normative;
– It has guidance value for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 75/2025/AL on deceitful tactics for property theft
2.1. Source of the precedent
Criminal appeal judgment No. 488/2021/HS-PT dated December 9, 2021, of the High People’s Court in Da Nang regarding the case of “Theft” against defendant Hong Chun K.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.
2.2. Summary of the precedent content
– Case situation:
The property owner does not look after or manage their property and does not entrust anyone else to look after or manage it. The defendant uses deceitful tactics by providing false information to lead a person not entrusted with looking after or managing the property to believe that the defendant is an acquaintance of the owner and to hand over the property to the defendant. The defendant subsequently appropriates this property.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the defendant must be held criminally liable for the crime of “Theft”.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Clause 1 Article 173 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam 2015 (amended and supplemented in 2017, 2024, and 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Theft”; “Property owner does not look after or manage property”; “Deceitful tactics for property theft”.
CASE CONTENT:
Through the documents in the case file and the process of questioning and arguments at the trial, the content of the case is summarized as follows:
At approximately 10:00 PM on February 19, 2021, Hong Chun K walked to Bar A at 177 N, M Ward, S District, Da Nang City, where he met Mr. Kang Chan J (a Korean national) talking to a friend in front of the restaurant. Hong Chun K nodded to greet Mr. Kang Chan J. Looking inside the bar, Hong Chun K saw Ms. Tran Thi Bich N sitting and talking with a group of friends, so he approached and signaled to take the handbag for Mr. Kang Chan J. Ms. N mistakenly thought Hong Chun K was a friend of Mr. Kang Chan J, so she took Mr. Kang Chan J’s handbag left on the table and handed it to Hong Chun K. When he went outside, Hong Chun K opened the handbag and found inside State Bank of Vietnam notes totaling approximately 1,500,000 VND (including two 500,000 VND notes, one 200,000 VND note, two 100,000 VND notes, and some small change in 20,000 VND, 10,000 VND, and 5,000 VND denominations); one (01) blue-black Samsung S8 mobile phone with a broken screen; one (01) small wallet and some documents. Hong Chun K took the phone and the money, discarding the remaining property on the sidewalk. Because he could not unlock the phone and could not sell it, Hong Chun K gave it to Mr. Nguyen Van H, a motorbike taxi driver. Hong Chun K spent all the stolen money.
On the morning of February 20, 2021, Mr. Kang Chan J realized his handbag was stolen and reported it to the police. Mr. Kang Chan J declared the lost property included: one (01) black handbag containing one (01) blue-black Samsung S8 mobile phone, 4,000,000 VND, and one (01) small Saint Laurent wallet.
Seized exhibits and assets included: State Bank of Vietnam currency of 2,191,000 VND (Two million one hundred and ninety-one thousand Vietnamese Dong); one (01) blue-black Samsung S8 mobile phone (submitted by Mr. H); one (01) black handheld bag and two (02) business cards with the name Kang Chan J.
According to the conclusion of the Property Valuation Council in criminal proceedings of S District, Da Nang City, the value of the property was:
– One (01) Samsung S8 mobile phone valued at 3,200,000 VND (Three million two hundred thousand Vietnamese Dong);
– One (01) black handheld bag valued at 400,000 VND (Four hundred thousand Vietnamese Dong);
– One (01) Saint Laurent wallet valued at 4,000,000 VND (Four million Vietnamese Dong).
The total value was 7,600,000 VND (Seven million six hundred thousand Vietnamese Dong).
Based on the above content: In Indictment No. 84/CT-VKS-P2 dated July 19, 2021, the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City prosecuted defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Theft” under Clause 1 Article 173 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).
During the trial preparation period, the People’s Court of Da Nang City found that the aforementioned actions of the accused Hong Chun K constituted the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” as prescribed in Clause 1 Article 174 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017). Therefore, on August 13, 2021, the People’s Court of Da Nang City issued Decision No. 775/2021/HSST-QD to return the file for supplementary investigation to the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City to re-prosecute the accused Hong Chun K for the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” under Clause 1 Article 174 of the Penal Code.
On September 9, 2021, the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City issued document No. 229/VKS-P2 maintaining the prosecution in Indictment No. 84/CT-VKS-P2 dated July 19, 2021, against defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Theft” under Clause 1 Article 173 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).
Pursuant to Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on September 13, 2021, the People’s Court of Da Nang City issued Decision No. 94/2021/QDXXST-HS to bring the case to trial against Hong Chun K for the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” under Clause 1 Article 174 of the Penal Code.
In First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 79/2021/HS-ST dated September 26, 2021, the People’s Court of Da Nang City decided:
To declare defendant Hong Chun K guilty of: “Fraudulent appropriation of property”.
Pursuant to: Clause 1 Article 174; points b, s Clause 1 Article 51 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).
Sentence: Defendant Hong Chun K: 12 (Twelve) months in prison. The prison term is calculated from the date of temporary detention, April 2, 2021.
Pursuant to Article 37 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).
Order: Deportation of defendant Hong Chun K from the territory of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam starting from the date he completes his prison sentence in Vietnam.
Additionally, the first-instance judgment also ruled on civil liability, handling of exhibits, court fees, and the right to appeal as prescribed by law.
On October 6, 2021, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City issued Protest Decision No. 254/QD-VKS-P2, stating: The actions of defendant Hong Chun K constitute the crime of “Theft” under Clause 1 Article 173 of the Penal Code, but the first-instance court’s trial of the defendant for the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” under Clause 1 Article 174 of the Penal Code was the incorrect charge according to the law. Therefore, it requested the High People’s Court in Da Nang to amend First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 79/2021/HSST dated September 26, 2021, of the People’s Court of Da Nang City toward sentencing defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Theft” under Clause 1 Article 173 of the Penal Code while maintaining the same sentence for the defendant.
– On October 11, 2021, defendant Hong Chun K appealed for a reduction of the sentence.
– At the appellate trial:
+ The representative of the Procuracy maintained the protest and requested the Appellate Court to accept Protest Decision No. 254/QD-VKS-P2 dated October 6, 2021, of the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City in its entirety.
+ Defendant Hong Chun K maintained his appeal for a reduction of the sentence and confessed to the criminal acts.
Based on the evidence and documents examined at the appellate trial, and based on the results of the arguments at the trial after fully and comprehensively considering the evidence, the opinions of the Procurator, and the defendant;
COURT’S ASSESSMENT:
[1] On the night of February 19, 2021, Mr. Kang Chan J went to Bar A at 177 L, M Ward, S District, Da Nang City, with Ms. Tran Thi Bich N to eat and drink and sat at the same table with some friends. When sitting at the table, Mr. Kang Chan J left a black handbag (containing one Samsung S8 mobile phone; 4 million Vietnamese Dong, one small wallet, and some personal documents) on his seat; Ms. Tran Thi Bich N was sitting next to it.
[2] While eating and drinking, Mr. Kang Chan J went outside Bar A to talk to a friend; defendant Hong Chun K knew Mr. J was outside, so he formed an intent to appropriate Mr. J’s property and approached the property by entering Bar A, asking, and signaling everyone at the table to hand over the handbag to the defendant; Ms. N mistakenly thought defendant Hong Chun K was a friend of Mr. Kang Chan J, so she took the handbag and gave it to Hong Chun K, who appropriated it.
[3] The total value of the property that defendant Hong Chun K appropriated from Mr. Kang Chan J was determined to be 11,600,000 VND.
[4] The aforementioned acts of defendant Hong Chun K were prosecuted by the Investigation Police Agency of Da Nang City for the crime of “Theft” and the Indictment of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City prosecuted him for the crime of “Theft”. First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 79/2021/HS-ST dated September 26, 2021, of the People’s Court of Da Nang City convicted defendant Hong Chun K of the crime: “Fraudulent appropriation of property”. The Appellate Trial Panel finds that:
[5] According to the testimony of Mr. Kang Chan J, when he left the Bar to talk to his friend, Mr. Kang Chan J still left his handbag at the table and did not entrust anyone at the table to manage the bag: “When I stood up to go out, the handbag was still on my chair… I did not say anything or ask N to manage my property…”. Mr. Kang Chan J’s testimony is consistent with Ms. N’s testimony regarding Mr. J leaving his bag at the eating area without entrusting it to Ms. N for management, and that Ms. N handing the bag to the defendant was due to her mistaken belief that defendant Hong Chun K was Mr. J’s friend: “While eating and drinking here, Mr. Kang Chan J left a handheld bag at the table inside the bar and went outside to talk to his friend. When he went out, Mr. Kang Chan J did not hand his handheld bag to me, nor did he ask me to manage it…” and “A Korean man came and asked to give him the wallet and phone… I believed he was Mr. J’s friend, so I gave the leather wallet to this person”. The testimonies of others sitting at the table with Mr. Kang Chan J also showed that Mr. J did not entrust anyone to manage his handbag.
[6] Therefore, Ms. Tran Thi Bich N and the others at the table were not the lawful custodians of Mr. J’s handbag. Although defendant Hong Chun K provided false information and openly appropriated the property by asking everyone: “Where is the Korean’s wallet and phone?” and when Ms. N asked back if it was Mr. Kang Chan J’s bag, the defendant signaled yes, leading Ms. N to believe him and hand over the bag; however, Ms. N was not the owner or the manager of Mr. Kang Chan J’s handbag; this was a tactic to execute the defendant’s intent to appropriate, and when Ms. N handed over the bag, the property owner, Mr. J, did not know he was being deceived; therefore, the actions of defendant Hong Chun K did not constitute the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” as concluded by the first-instance court.
[7] Defendant Hong Chun K took advantage of the time when Mr. Kang Chan J was elsewhere and exploited the negligence of the owner or manager of the property (the handbag) to appropriate it, and when the defendant appropriated the handbag, Mr. Kang Chan J was unaware: “6 hours after waking up, I discovered my handbag was missing, so I called N to ask…”. Thus, defendant Hong Chun K appropriated the handbag stealthily from the owner and manager, Mr. J, so the defendant’s behavior constitutes theft. Therefore, the Investigation Police Agency of Da Nang City prosecuted defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Theft” and the Indictment of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City prosecuted the defendant for the crime of “Theft” with merit. The first-instance court’s conviction of defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” was inconsistent with the criminal behavior and incorrect according to the law.
[8] Although the Appellate Court accepts the protest, changes the charge, and tries defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Theft”, according to the defendant’s criminal record (provided by the Consulate General of South Korea), the defendant has a bad personal history and has been handled multiple times for appropriation acts, showing a disregard for the law. Therefore, after assessing the seriousness of the case, the degree of the criminal behavior, and considering mitigating circumstances such as: honest declaration, repentance; first-time offender in a less serious case, the first-instance court’s decision to sentence the defendant to 12 months in prison was well-founded and lenient. Thus, defendant Hong Chun K’s appeal for a reduced sentence is not accepted.
[9] Based on the above assessments, the Appellate Trial Panel accepts the protest of the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City and rejects the appeal for a reduction of the sentence by defendant Hong Chun K.
[10] Other remaining decisions of the first-instance judgment that were not appealed or protested are not considered by the appellate level.
For these reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to point b Clause 1 Article 355 and point b Clause 1 Article 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1. Accept Protest Decision No. 254/QD-VKS-P2 dated October 6, 2021, of the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City and amend the first-instance judgment regarding the charge.
Reject the appeal of defendant Hong Chun K.
2. Declare defendant Hong Chun K guilty of: “Theft”.
Pursuant to: Clause 1 Article 173; points b, s Clause 1 Article 51 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).
Sentence: Defendant Hong Chun K: 12 (Twelve) months in prison. The prison term is calculated from the date of temporary detention, April 2, 2021.
Pursuant to Article 37 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).
Order: Deportation of defendant Hong Chun K from the territory of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam starting from the date he completes his prison sentence in Vietnam.
3. Other decisions of the first-instance judgment regarding civil liability, handling of exhibits, and court fees that were not appealed or protested shall take legal effect from the date the time limit for appeal or protest expires.
The appellate criminal judgment takes legal effect from the date of pronouncement.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[5] According to the testimony of Mr. Kang Chan J, when he left the Bar to talk to his friend, Mr. Kang Chan J still left his handbag at the table and did not entrust anyone at the table to manage the bag: “When I stood up to go out, the handbag was still on my chair… I did not say anything or ask N to manage my property…”. Mr. Kang Chan J’s testimony is consistent with Ms. N’s testimony regarding Mr. J leaving his bag at the eating area without entrusting it to Ms. N for management, and that Ms. N handing the bag to the defendant was due to her mistaken belief that defendant Hong Chun K was Mr. J’s friend: “While eating and drinking here, Mr. Kang Chan J left a handheld bag at the table inside the bar and went outside to talk to his friend. When he went out, Mr. Kang Chan J did not hand his handheld bag to me, nor did he ask me to manage it…” and “A Korean man came and asked to give him the wallet and phone… I believed he was Mr. J’s friend, so I gave the leather wallet to this person”. The testimonies of others sitting at the table with Mr. Kang Chan J also showed that Mr. J did not entrust anyone to manage his handbag.
[6] Therefore, Ms. Tran Thi Bich N and the others at the table were not the lawful custodians of Mr. J’s handbag. Although defendant Hong Chun K provided false information and openly appropriated the property by asking everyone: “Where is the Korean’s wallet and phone?” and when Ms. N asked back if it was Mr. Kang Chan J’s bag, the defendant signaled yes, leading Ms. N to believe him and hand over the bag; however, Ms. N was not the owner or the manager of Mr. Kang Chan J’s handbag; this was a tactic to execute the defendant’s intent to appropriate, and when Ms. N handed over the bag, the property owner, Mr. J, did not know he was being deceived; therefore, the actions of defendant Hong Chun K did not constitute the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” as concluded by the first-instance court.
[7] Defendant Hong Chun K took advantage of the time when Mr. Kang Chan J was elsewhere and exploited the negligence of the owner or manager of the property (the handbag) to appropriate it, and when the defendant appropriated the handbag, Mr. Kang Chan J was unaware: “6 hours after waking up, I discovered my handbag was missing, so I called N to ask…”. Thus, defendant Hong Chun K appropriated the handbag stealthily from the owner and manager, Mr. J, so the defendant’s behavior constitutes theft. Therefore, the Investigation Police Agency of Da Nang City prosecuted defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Theft” and the Indictment of the People’s Procuracy of Da Nang City prosecuted the defendant for the crime of “Theft” with merit. The first-instance court’s conviction of defendant Hong Chun K for the crime of “Fraudulent appropriation of property” was inconsistent with the criminal behavior and incorrect according to the law.“.
