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
-
BlogsWhat Does Methamphetamine Injection Mean Under Korean Law?
Methamphetamine injection refers to the act of injecting methamphetamine, a psychotropic controlled substance regulated under Korea's Narcotics Control Act, directly into the body. Key legal points include: The act of using methamphetamine alone is a criminal offense, even without possession, distribution, or sale. Regardless of the amount used or the number of times it was used, the offense is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 100 million. Drug use can often be proven through hair follicle testing and urinalysis. Because methamphetamine leaves detectable traces in the body, prosecutors can generally secure objective evidence more easily than in many other drug-related offenses. What Happens During the Criminal Process? When authorities suspect methamphetamine injection, the case generally proceeds through the following stages: Preliminary Investigation Law enforcement begins investigating based on a report, tip, or intelligence. Forensic Drug Testing Hair and urine samples are collected to determine whether methamphetamine was used. Arrest and Detention If the test results are positive, investigators may seek an emergency arrest or apply for a detention warrant. Referral to the Prosecutor and Indictment The case is transferred to the prosecution, which decides whether to file criminal charges. Criminal Trial The court ultimately determines the appropriate sentence. Because a suspect's initial statements and early response to the investigation often have a significant impact on sentencing, obtaining legal representation as early as possible is critically important. A Real Case We Handled A man in his thirties injected methamphetamine only once after being persuaded by an acquaintance. A subsequent hair analysis returned a positive result, and he became the subject of a criminal investigation. Although he had no prior criminal record, prosecutors sought pretrial detention, arguing that there was a risk of flight and destruction of evidence. With assistance from Decent Law Firm from the earliest stage of the investigation, the client successfully demonstrated his voluntary cooperation with the investigation and sincere commitment to preventing future drug use. As a result, he was allowed to remain at liberty throughout the criminal proceedings rather than being detained before trial. This case illustrates how early legal representation can significantly influence the outcome of a methamphetamine prosecution. Why You Need an Experienced Defense Attorney Methamphetamine cases require specialized legal knowledge and strategic defense, including: Careful review and interpretation of forensic drug test results Protecting the client's rights throughout police and prosecutorial questioning Preparing mitigating evidence and developing an effective sentencing strategy Drawing on extensive experience handling narcotics cases, Decent Law Firm carefully analyzes each client's circumstances and develops a comprehensive defense strategy from the initial investigation through trial. We understand that clients accused of drug offenses are often under tremendous psychological pressure, and we work to ensure that their legal rights are fully protected at every stage of the proceedings. Why You Should Seek Legal Advice Immediately Methamphetamine cases become increasingly difficult to defend as time passes. If you have already been questioned by investigators or have received a summons for questioning, it is essential to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney before making important decisions on your own. At Decent Law Firm, we are committed to providing prompt, accurate legal advice and helping every client determine the best course of action based on their individual circumstances.
2026-07-03 -
Blogs
Failure to Take Required Measures After a Traffic Accident in Korea: Insurance Settlement and Criminal Liability
When a traffic accident occurs in Korea, many drivers assume that the matter is resolved once they report the accident to their insurance company and complete the compensation process with the other party. However, insurance settlement and criminal liability are separate issues. If a driver leaves the scene without taking the legally required measures immediately after an accident, criminal liability may still arise regardless of whether the damage was later covered by insurance. In practice, investigations for failure to take post-accident measures may begin even after all property damage has been compensated through insurance. This article explains how insurance settlement and criminal responsibility are distinguished under Korean law, and how comprehensive automobile insurance affects accident-related criminal liability. Legal Basis for Post-Accident Duties Under Article 54(1) of the Korean Road Traffic Act, when a vehicle accident causes injury, death, or property damage, the driver must immediately stop, provide necessary assistance to injured persons, take required safety measures, and provide personal information to the victim. Failure to comply with these duties may be punishable under Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to KRW 15 million. However, if the accident only involves damage to a parked or stopped vehicle and the driver fails to provide personal information, Article 156(10) of the Road Traffic Act may apply instead. In that case, the penalty may be limited to a fine of up to KRW 200,000, detention, or a minor penalty. In certain cases, if the driver pays the administrative penalty notice within the required period, the matter may be closed without formal criminal punishment. If the penalty is not paid, the case may proceed to a criminal procedure involving a fine, detention, or minor penalty. Key Legal Distinctions In Korean traffic accident cases, the legal consequences differ depending on the type of conduct involved. 1. Property damage caused by negligent driving This generally falls under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act. If the driver has comprehensive automobile insurance or equivalent coverage, prosecution may be restricted under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. 2. Failure to take required measures after an accident This falls under Articles 54(1) and 148 of the Road Traffic Act. Comprehensive insurance does not exempt a driver from liability for leaving the scene without taking required measures. 3. Failure to provide personal information after damaging a parked vehicle This is commonly referred to as a property-damage hit-and-run or “mulpi doju” in Korean practice. It may be handled under Article 156(10) of the Road Traffic Act and may be resolved through an administrative penalty in certain cases. 4. Leaving the scene after an accident involving injury or death If personal injury is involved and the driver leaves without providing assistance, the case may be treated as a hit-and-run injury or fatality under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. This is not covered by the insurance exception and may lead to aggravated punishment. Sources: Road Traffic Act, Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Why Comprehensive Insurance Does Not Cover Failure to Take Required Measures Under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, a driver who has comprehensive automobile insurance may be protected from prosecution for certain traffic accidents involving negligent property damage. However, this protection applies to the accident itself, not to the separate duty to stop, provide assistance, and take necessary measures after the accident. The Korean Supreme Court has clearly distinguished these two issues. In Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9689, decided on September 7, 2017, the Court held that failure to take required measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is an intentional offense that requires awareness of injury, death, or property damage. The Court further held that this offense is separate from negligent property damage under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act because the protected legal interests, offender, conduct, and elements of the offense are different. In other words, even if the property damage itself is covered by insurance and may not be prosecuted, the act of leaving the scene without taking required measures may still remain as a separate criminal offense. Insurance settlement does not automatically eliminate liability for failure to take post-accident measures. Practical Issues Commonly Reviewed in These Cases In cases involving alleged failure to take required measures after an accident, the following issues are often critical. ▪️Awareness of the accident Because this offense requires intent, it is important to examine whether the driver actually recognized the accident or at least was aware of the possibility that an accident had occurred. The purpose of Article 54(1) is to remove traffic risks and obstacles and ensure road safety, not merely to compensate the victim. ▪️Difference between insurance compensation and criminal settlement Payment through an insurance company is a civil compensation process. In a criminal case, a separate settlement agreement or confirmation of the victim’s intention not to seek punishment may still be important. ▪️Timing and effect of settlement A settlement with the victim may be considered as a mitigating factor. However, its practical effect may differ depending on whether it is reached at the early investigation stage or after indictment. ▪️Possibility of personal injury An accident that initially appears minor may later involve a medical certificate or diagnosis submitted by the other party. If injury is recognized, the case may escalate into a hit-and-run injury case under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist Cases involving failure to take required measures after a traffic accident require a clear understanding of both civil compensation through insurance and separate criminal proceedings. The criminal defense team at Decent Law Firm reviews these cases from the early investigation stage, analyzing the relationship between insurance records, accident circumstances, victim statements, settlement issues, and potential criminal liability. If you have received a call from the police after believing that the accident had already been resolved through insurance, it is important not to treat the matter lightly. Before confirming your police interview schedule, you should first review your situation from a legal perspective.
2026-07-02 -
Blogs
Livelihood-Based Objection for DUI License Suspension or Revocation in Korea: When Reduction May Be Excluded
If your driver’s license has been suspended or revoked due to DUI in Korea, you may file an objection with the competent metropolitan or provincial police agency within 60 days from the date you receive the disposition. One of the grounds for reduction is when driving is an essential means of supporting the applicant’s family. In practice, this is often referred to as a “livelihood-based objection.” However, even if driving is important for your work or livelihood, certain circumstances may exclude you from reduction from the outset. This article explains the legal basis of the livelihood-based objection and the key situations where a reduction may not be available. Legal Basis and Possible Effect of an Objection An objection against a driver’s license suspension or revocation due to DUI is based on Article 94 of the Korean Road Traffic Act and Articles 95 and 96 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. The objection must be filed within 60 days from the date the disposition is received. Once filed, the case is reviewed by the Administrative Review Committee for Driver’s License Dispositions, which may decide whether the disposition can be reduced. The Enforcement Rule sets out several grounds for reduction. One of the most commonly used grounds is where driving is an essential means of maintaining the livelihood of the applicant’s family. If this ground is accepted, a license revocation may be reduced to a 110-day license suspension. A license suspension may also be reduced by up to one-half of the original suspension period. When Reduction May Be Excluded Before reviewing whether driving is necessary for livelihood, the authorities first check whether any exclusion grounds apply. Reduction may be excluded in the following cases: ▪️Blood alcohol concentration over 0.1% If the driver’s BAC exceeded 0.1% at the time of detection. ▪️Traffic accident involving personal injury If the DUI resulted in an accident where another person was injured. ▪️Refusal to take a breathalyzer test, fleeing the scene, or assaulting a police officer If the driver refused testing, fled, or used violence against an officer during enforcement. ▪️Repeated personal injury accidents within the past five years If the driver caused three or more traffic accidents involving personal injury within the past five years. ▪️Prior DUI record within the past five years If the driver has a previous DUI record within the past five years. Source: Appendix 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act These grounds apply independently. This means that even one applicable ground may exclude the applicant from reduction, regardless of how important driving is for work or family livelihood. Even a first-time DUI offender may be excluded if the BAC level exceeds the applicable threshold or if a personal injury accident occurred. What to Check Before Filing an Objection Before preparing a livelihood-based objection, it is important to review the following points in order. First, check the BAC level at the time of detection. If it exceeded 0.1%, reduction may be excluded. Second, check whether there was any accident, refusal to take a breathalyzer test, fleeing, or other aggravating circumstance. Third, if no exclusion ground applies, prepare documents showing that driving is necessary for maintaining livelihood. These may include an employment certificate, business registration certificate, client or delivery records, income documents, and other materials showing that driving is essential for work. If an objection is filed only with a statement of hardship, without first checking the exclusion grounds, the 60-day filing period may be used up without meaningful review. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist In livelihood-based DUI objections, the possibility of reduction does not depend only on whether the applicant is a first-time offender. BAC level, accident history, refusal to comply with testing, and prior DUI records are critical factors that determine whether reduction may be available at all. Decent Law Firm’s criminal defense team reviews DUI-related administrative dispositions, including objections and administrative appeals, from the initial stage. If you have received notice of license suspension or revocation in Korea, it is important to review your eligibility before the 60-day deadline expires.
2026-07-01
