Pureun “Ian” Hong
MP ian@decentlaw.ioIan served as criminal law expert at YK Lawfirm, handling various corporate litigations including private fund investments, STOs, and capital markets.
- Criminal
- Class Action
- Crypto
- Real Estate Disputes / Construction
- Entertainment
Related News
-
Our NewsMBC <김현태의 707특임단.. 사복 입고 국회 살펴봤다> 보도에 대한 변호인 입장문
입장문 전문 본 입장문은 육군대령 707특임단장 김현태의 변호인(디센트 법률사무소)이 작성하였습니다. https://imnews.imbc.com/replay/2025/nwtoday/article/6785954_36807.html 국회 사전 정찰은 없었으며, 본 보도는 사실이 아닙니다. 김현태 전 707특임단장은 현재 진실을 해명하고자 자발적으로 검찰에 제출한 자료와 일부 언론사의 가짜뉴스를 근거로 기소되어 재판 중입니다. 또한 승인 없이 기자회견을 했다는 이유로 육군에서 전역조치를 전제로 한 징계절차가 진행 중에 있습니다. 오직 부대와 부하를 살리겠다는 일념으로 규정을 어겨가며 기자회견을 했고, 국민들께 부하들을 용서해주시고, 살려달라고 부탁드렸습니다. 법적 책임이 있다면 김현태 대령이 모두 다 지고 갈 것이고, 정상적인 법적 절차가 끝나면 도덕적 책임을 지고 스스로 군을 떠나겠다고도 약속드렸습니다. 잘못된 언론보도에 대한 정정보도를 정중히 요청드립니다. 첫째, 국회 사전 정찰은 사실무근입니다. 특전사는 대테러 관숙훈련 등 외부 활동시 사복을 착용합니다. 외부 활동을 할 때 사복을 입는 것은 너무나 당연한 것입니다. 김현태 대령은 수사기관에서 7차례 조사를 받았고, 다수의 국방위/국조특위에 출석하였으며, 헌법재판소 등 증인출석만 4회 하였습니다. MBC 보도처럼 사전 준비 정황이 있었다면 이 중요한 사항을 왜 검찰과 특검에서 조사하거나 추궁하지 않았겠습니까? 정찰은 작전에 필요한 자료를 얻기위해 해당 건물 및 지형의 내·외부를 상세히 살피는 것을 의미합니다. 김현태 대령은 국회를 정찰한 적이 없으며, 곽종근 사령관이 서울 곳곳을 살펴보라고 하여 다녀온 적이 있을 뿐입니다. 그러나 당시에도 국회는 가지 않았고 계엄과 관련된 정보도 전혀 듣지 못했습니다. 이에 대하여 국방부에서 정상적인 절차에 의해 조사가 이루어진다면 김현태 대령은 알고 있는 범위 내에서 상세히 답변드릴 용의가 있습니다. 하지만 김현대 대령 또한 당시 사령관께서 왜 지시했는지에 대한 배경 정보는 전혀 없습니다. 이에 정확한 목적과 배경을 알고자 하신다면 곽종근 전 특수전사령관 측으로 문의하셔야 할 것입니다. 둘째, 헬기 착륙지점 최신화는 통상적인 업무였습니다. 24년 3월에 있었던 특전사의 수도권 헬기 착륙지점 최신화를 문제삼았습니다. 이는 비상계엄과 무관한 정상적인 업무였고, 707특임단이 아닌 사령부와 특수작전항공단에서 임무수행 한 것으로 알고 있습니다. 셋째, 국회 설계도 요구는 1공수여단의 대테러 대비 활동입니다. 24년 7월에 국회 사무처에 내부 설계도를 요구했으나 거절된 사항은 707특임단이 아니라 서울 남부지역의 대테러작전 임무를 수행하는 1공수여단이 단독으로 진행했던 사항이며 정상적인 대테러 대비 활동이었습니다. 이것은 유사시 국회를 보호하기 위한 테러대비 활동에 불과합니다. 넷째, MBC의 취재 과정 및 보도에 유감을 표합니다. MBC는 김현태 대령이 연락해도 답을 하지 않았다고 합니다. 본 사항은 원칙적으로 국방부를 통해 확인해야 할 사항이며 김현태 단장은 현직 군인으로 언론인 접촉이 금지되어 있습니다. 또한 사전에 연락이 온 적이 없고 그것도 언론보도(12.16.15:40) 이후인 전화(12.16.16:54)와 문자(12.16.17:00)가 왔을 뿐입니다. 그런데도 마치 사전에 문의하였으나 답변이 없었던 것처럼 보도되었습니다. 見利思義 見危授命 (견리사의 견위수명) 김현태 대령은 안중근 장군께서 유묵으로 남기신 [견리사의 견위수명]의 자세로 이 어두운 터널을 당당히 걸어갈 것입니다. 군이 하루빨리 정상화되고, 국민들로부터 믿음과 신뢰를 받는 강군으로 거듭나기를 기원합니다. 2025. 12. 29. 김현태 육군대령 변호인 - 디센트 법률사무소
2025-12-29 -
Blogs
Recovery Strategies Every Blockchain Scam Victim Must Know
Why Blockchain Scams Cause Such Severe Damage Unlike conventional financial fraud, blockchain scams are rooted in the abuse of technological characteristics. Due to the inherent nature of blockchain technology, once a virtual asset transaction is completed, it is technically irreversible. This non-reversible structure makes post-incident recovery extremely difficult. When overseas exchanges or foreign wallets are involved, jurisdictional issues further complicate the situation, significantly raising the difficulty of any legal or practical response. A major problem is that many victims mistakenly perceive these cases as mere investment losses. Technical jargon such as whitepapers, smart contracts, and algorithms is often used to disguise intentional deception, causing victims to miss the critical window for effective action. In practice, early response timing plays a decisive role in determining whether meaningful recovery is possible in blockchain fraud cases. For those already experiencing anxiety and fear due to such losses, we hope this guide helps provide some clarity and direction. Common Types of Blockchain Scams (From the Victim’s Perspective) In practice, blockchain scams tend to follow recurring patterns: Fraud disguised as coin investments or private sales Schemes posing as crypto loans, staking programs, or yield products Fake exchanges, wallets, or phishing sites designed to steal login credentials or assets Signal groups, automated trading services, or guaranteed-profit schemes The critical issue is distinguishing between ordinary investment risk and losses caused by deceptive conduct. This distinction directly affects whether criminal fraud charges may be established and whether civil liability for damages can be pursued. If this assessment is incorrect, the entire response strategy may be fundamentally misguided. Immediate Actions to Take Once You Recognize the Fraud If fraud is suspected, the first step is to immediately stop any further transactions, change passwords for all related accounts, and prevent secondary damage. At the same time, evidence preservation is the highest priority. You must securely retain and back up original materials, including transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots and original files of Telegram, KakaoTalk, or email communications, website URLs and whitepapers provided by the counterparty, contracts, and transfer records. Failure at this stage can create decisive limitations in both criminal and civil proceedings later on. You may request withdrawal freezes from virtual asset service providers (exchanges), ask investigative authorities to suspend payments related to fraudulent accounts, and consider filing a report under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damage Proceeds. The earlier the response, the greater the possibility of practical measures being taken. Waiting passively only reduces the available options—active intervention is essential. How Decent Law Firm Makes a Practical Difference Blockchain scam cases cannot be resolved simply by filing a criminal complaint. They require a coordinated strategy that integrates structural analysis of the scam, clear legal issue identification, and parallel criminal and civil actions. Decent Law Firm conducts in-depth reviews of transaction flows and technical structures to precisely assess whether fraud is legally established, and prepares structured criminal complaints and legal memoranda for submission to investigative authorities. We also develop realistic, case-specific strategies involving exchanges, overseas platforms, and potential civil recovery depending on the feasibility of identifying the perpetrators. Ultimately, blockchain scams are not merely technical issues—they are problems of legal structure and accountability. If damage has already occurred, it is crucial not to proceed alone. Early, accurate legal intervention is the most effective way to define the proper course of action. In blockchain fraud cases, speed and precision make a tangible difference. We strongly encourage you to prepare and act without further delay.
2025-12-25 -
Blogs
Korea’s AI Basic Act: Key Compliance Checkpoints for AI Businesses
The public notice period for the Enforcement Decree of the “Framework Act on the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust” (hereinafter the 'AI Basic Act') concluded on December 22, 2025. With the Act set to take effect on January 22, 2026, the South Korean government has finalized the institutional framework. For AI service providers, these regulations are not merely post-launch checklists but essential specifications that must be integrated from the initial planning and design stages. 1. Labeling Obligations for Generative AI and UX Integration Transparency requirements under Article 31 of the AI Basic Act have been further refined through the Enforcement Decree. Labeling Methods: Providers must choose between a "Human-Perceptible Format" (visible text/watermarks) and a "Machine-Readable Format" (C2PA, metadata, etc.) to identify AI-generated content. Mandatory Notification: Even when adopting machine-readable formats, providers are obligated to notify users at least once via text or audio prompts. Avoidance of Double Regulation: If content (e.g., deepfakes) has already been labeled in accordance with other relevant laws, it may be exempt from redundant labeling duties under this Act. Practical Impact: This is not a simple notification task; it directly impacts UX/UI design. Legal reviews should be conducted during the design phase to avoid the prohibitive costs of post-launch modifications. 2. High-Impact AI Confirmation and Launch Risk Management The Act defines "High-Impact AI" as systems that significantly affect human life, physical safety, or fundamental rights (e.g., healthcare, transportation, recruitment, credit scoring, etc.). Confirmation Procedure: Businesses can apply to the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) to confirm whether their service qualifies as "High-Impact AI." The government must respond within 60 days (30 days + a possible 30-day extension). Business Risk: The government's response timeline is a critical variable for service launch schedules. If a service is retroactively classified as High-Impact AI, the provider may face the risk of redesigning the entire system architecture to meet enhanced safety standards. 3. Integration with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) The Enforcement Decree reflects efforts to resolve overlapping regulations with the existing PIPA. Deemed Compliance: If a business faithfully fulfills its obligations under PIPA, it is deemed to have satisfied the safety and reliability requirements of the AI Basic Act regarding the processing of personal information. Limitations: Note that this "deemed compliance" applies only to personal data processing. Obligations regarding algorithm transparency and accountability for AI outputs must still be addressed separately under the AI Basic Act. 4. Post-Management Accountability: 5-Year Data Retention & Domestic Agents The Decree formalizes accountability measures to verify regulatory compliance. Record-Keeping: Documents including risk management plans, explanation protocols, and user protection measures must be retained for 5 years. These serve as crucial evidence during disputes or regulatory investigations. Domestic Agent Appointment: Overseas AI providers are now explicitly required to appoint a domestic agent in Korea. Domestic companies utilizing APIs from global Big Tech firms must also conduct supply-chain compliance checks. 5. Safety Obligations for Large-Scale AI Models (High-Compute AI) The Decree imposes obligations to establish risk identification and management systems for developers of large-scale AI models with cumulative training computation exceeding $10^{26}$ FLOPs. Domestic businesses providing services based on these hyper-scale models must also review the legal structure of liability and risk-sharing. Conclusion: A 1-Year Grace Period, but the Time to Prepare is Now The government intends to provide a one-year grace period following the enforcement of the Act. However, given the nature of the AI industry, reactive adjustments can lead to immense technical costs and legal exposure. Enterprises must now view "Compliance by Design" as a core element of their service, moving beyond mere technological development. We recommend a thorough diagnostic of whether your services fall under the "High-Impact" or "Generative AI" categories to ensure full readiness by the enforcement date. DECENT Law Firm provides tailored legal counsel and solutions to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape of the AI industry. If you require a detailed review or a compliance audit, please contact us.
2025-12-24
