-
BlogsHow to File a Criminal Complaint for Workplace Harassment and Manage Legal Risks
Workplace Harassment: When Does It Escalate to Criminal Charges? Workplace harassment, in and of itself, is not subject to criminal punishment. However, if the conduct constituting harassment also satisfies the elements of crimes under the Criminal Act—such as assault, intimidation, insult, or defamation—criminal charges may be filed (Criminal Act Articles 260, 307, and 311). Many cases are resolved through internal reporting procedures, investigations, and personnel measures within the company. The issue arises when internal procedures fail to function effectively, or when the reporting itself results in retaliation. Where a superior in a position of dominance repeatedly engages in verbal abuse, publicly humiliates an employee, or where exclusion and isolation persist over an extended period, the matter goes beyond a mere internal workplace conflict. If psychological harm accumulates to the point that daily life or continued employment becomes difficult, and the harassment conduct satisfies the elements of a criminal offense, criminal prosecution may be considered. In such cases, civil claims for damages may also be pursued (Supreme Court Decision, November 25, 2021, Case No. 2020Da270503). The point at which one considers how to file criminal charges for workplace harassment should not be when emotions erupt, but when it is possible to calmly assess whether the objective legal requirements are met. For those enduring anxiety and fear alone, this article aims to clarify that there is a clearly defined area in which the law can provide protection. Types of Workplace Harassment That May Lead to Criminal Charges In practice, workplace harassment cases that escalate to criminal complaints tend to follow identifiable patterns. If repeated verbal abuse constitutes the offense of insult (Criminal Act Article 311), or if facts—true or false—are publicly alleged in a manner that damages another’s reputation (Criminal Act Article 307), criminal charges may be sufficiently supported. By contrast, private errands unrelated to work or excessive workloads may not, by themselves, meet the threshold for criminal punishment. However, if such conduct is accompanied by assault or threats, offenses such as coercion (Criminal Act Article 324) may be examined. Deliberately excluding an individual from meetings or work-related communications, or publicly labeling someone as a “problem employee” in front of others, also constitutes a serious matter. In particular, if retaliatory actions—such as disadvantages in personnel decisions, downgraded evaluations, or involuntary transfers—follow after harassment is reported, the legal gravity of the case increases significantly. Workplace harassment does not require repetition as an absolute condition. Even a single act may be recognized if it constitutes a serious infringement of personal dignity. Nevertheless, for criminal prosecution, each offense must satisfy its specific statutory elements. In cases of insult or defamation, requirements such as publicity and factual allegations must be met (Criminal Act Articles 307 and 311). Criminal Complaint Procedure and Key Pre-Filing Considerations In workplace harassment cases, accuracy in preparation and sequencing matters more than the procedure itself. The overall process typically proceeds as follows: Collection of Evidence and Organization of Facts Secure objective materials such as recordings, messenger conversations, emails, internal notices, and witness statements. Organize the incidents chronologically by date, location, and conduct. Review of Internal Reporting Options Under Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act, employees may report workplace harassment to the employer, who is obligated to investigate and take appropriate measures. Internal reporting is a legal right, and retaliatory treatment against the reporter is prohibited. Filing a Criminal Complaint with the Competent Investigative Authority The complaint should be drafted around the elements of applicable criminal offenses (e.g., assault, threats, insult, defamation), while also describing the broader context of workplace harassment. Investigation of the Complainant, Witnesses, and the Accused Consistency and precision in statements during interviews with investigators are critical points of evaluation. Review of Disposition and Consideration of Follow-Up Measures Depending on the outcome of the investigation, additional complaints, civil damages claims, or parallel labor law procedures may be considered. Emotional expressions or exaggerated descriptions during this process can undermine credibility. Moreover, if a complaint is dismissed, filing a complaint without an objective factual basis may expose the complainant to risks of defamation claims or counter-charges. Deciding how to file criminal charges for workplace harassment is never a matter to be taken lightly. A poorly prepared complaint can lead to further legal disputes, and this risk must be clearly understood. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm approaches workplace harassment cases not as emotional conflicts, but as matters of legal structure. We conduct advance reviews of whether criminal complaint requirements are met and design feasible strategies based on the quality and arrangement of evidence. We also work in collaboration with labor law specialists who are former certified labor attorneys, refining expressions that could be interpreted unfavorably during statements, and responding to criminal, labor, and civil issues in an integrated manner rather than treating them separately. The outcome of workplace harassment cases depends heavily on the initial response. The consequences of taking this issue lightly are far from insignificant. This is precisely why a structured response is necessary. Before it is too late, we strongly encourage discussing your available options with a qualified professional.
2026-01-08 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Must-Read if You Want to Avoid Penalties and Administrative Surcharges for Violations of the Fair Trade Act
Why Do We Become Parties to Violations of the Fair Trade Act? Most violations of the Fair Trade Act begin with transactional structures that have been repeated as customary practice. Conditions that have continued for years without question often come to light unchanged during investigations. Many companies assume that the mere existence of contractual provisions shields them from legal liability. However, the Fair Trade Act assesses illegality based not on the formal agreement of the contract, but on the substantive nature of the transaction and the imbalance of bargaining power between the parties. In particular, where the counterparty is in a position of economic dependence and cannot realistically refuse the terms, the conduct may be deemed unlawful regardless of the business operator’s subjective intent. In such cases, the corporation itself and the representative who holds actual decision-making authority may ultimately become the responsible parties under the Fair Trade Act. Key Transaction Structures Targeted by the Korea Fair Trade Commission Under the Fair Trade Act, abuse of superior bargaining position may arise where a business operator is recognized as having a superior position in trade vis-à-vis the counterparty (Article 45(1)(6) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act). If direct or indirect control over pricing, transaction terms, or business operations exists, the situation has already entered a risk zone. Using a superior bargaining position to impose unfair disadvantages on a counterparty—such as by threatening contract termination or suspension of transactions—may be regulated as abuse of superior bargaining position. In particular, discrepancies between internal standards or manuals and actual operational practices themselves can serve as grounds for determining a violation of the Fair Trade Act. Accordingly, the Korea Fair Trade Commission evaluates not only formal documents such as contracts, but also actual trading practices and operational realities in a comprehensive manner. Structures that appeared to be mutually agreed upon on the surface are often interpreted as unilateral control during the course of an investigation. From This Stage, Investigation and Sanction Risks Become Real Fair Trade Act cases may begin through complaints filed by counterparties or through ex officio investigations initiated by the Korea Fair Trade Commission. Once a complaint is received or an ex officio investigation is launched, the Commission may examine transaction records and related materials concerning the alleged violation. For this reason, the response strategy at the initial stage is a decisive factor in determining the outcome. Inaccurate explanations during document submissions, poor internal document management, or inconsistent statements can become fatal grounds for adverse findings. If the degree of violation is not minor, corrective measures and administrative surcharges may be imposed. Where the violation is objectively clear and serious enough to substantially harm the competitive order, criminal referral may follow. When criminal punishment is imposed for violations of the Fair Trade Act, the dual liability provisions may apply, resulting in penalties not only for the corporation but also for its representative officers. This is therefore a matter that must never be taken lightly. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm works in collaboration with corporate law specialists to practically assess and respond to fair trade risks arising in the course of corporate operations. Rather than limiting our review to formal contractual terms, we focus on actual transaction structures and operational realities, providing assistance in the following ways: Preemptive risk assessments of transaction structures, contracts, and operational practices Clarification of criteria for potential Fair Trade Act violations and advisory on structural improvements Development of response and substantiation strategies for KFTC investigations Practical, industry- and company-size–specific compliance support Fair Trade Act penalties are an area where it is already too late to begin considering solutions after issues have arisen. Assessing whether current transaction practices may fall within the scope of regulation is, in itself, the most realistic and effective form of response.
2026-01-08 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Mandatory 'AI Content Labeling System' Starting 2026: An Essential Guide for Businesses and Marketers
With the rapid advancement of AI technology, marketing strategies utilizing virtual humans or AI-generated content have become commonplace. In response, to prevent consumer confusion and establish a sound market order, the government is set to fully implement the ‘AI Content Labeling System’ starting January 2026. This column summarizes the key aspects of the AI Labeling System—including its background, legal basis, practical labeling methods, and risks of non-compliance—that corporate marketing managers and influencers must be aware of. 1. Background: Preventing Misinformation and Market Disruption The primary reason for enforcing the AI Labeling System as a legal obligation is the surge in false and exaggerated advertisements exploiting AI technology. The "Fake Expert" Problem: There has been an increase in cases where fake doctors or experts created via deepfake technology recommend unverified products, hindering consumers' rational choices and causing financial damage. Establishing Market Order: The government has defined these practices not merely as marketing but as "acts disturbing market order." Consequently, it has mandated the disclosure of AI generation (e.g., "This content was created by AI") to ensure consumers can clearly identify the authenticity of information. 2. Legal Basis and Key Provisions The AI Labeling System is not a simple recommendation but a strong legal obligation based on the following laws: Category Key Provisions Note Framework Act on AI Effective Jan 22, 2026. Mandates labeling and notice for high-impact and generative AI services. Administrative Fines IT Network Act Requires uploaders to label AI content and imposes management/notice responsibilities on platforms. Amendment targeted for Q1 2026 Labeling & Advertising Act Regards concealing or exaggerating AI use as Unfair Labeling/Advertising. Punitive Damages In particular, the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) plans to strictly sanction AI Washing—the act of concealing the use of AI to make content appear human-created—viewing it as deceptive advertising. 3. Practical Guide: Who, What, and How to Label 1) Obligated Parties: AI Business Operators Under the law, the obligated parties are defined as "AI Business Operators." This encompasses not only AI technology developers but all business entities (corporations, organizations, and individuals) that provide products or services utilizing AI. 2) Content Subject to Labeling Generative AI Products/Services: Prior notice is mandatory when providing AI-based services such as chatbots or image generation tools. Deepfake Results: Virtual audio, images, or videos that are difficult to distinguish from reality. Advertising Content: AI-generated content for commercial purposes, such as shopping mall detail pages and influencer sponsored ads. 3) Labeling Methods and Exceptions General Principle: Must be labeled in a way that consumers can clearly recognize (e.g., subtitles, watermarks, etc.). Cultural/Artistic Exception: However, if the content qualifies as a "artistic or creative expression" and labeling would significantly hinder appreciation, flexible labeling exceptions may apply (Article 31, Paragraph 3 of the Framework Act on AI). 4. Penalties and Risks (Fines vs. Damages) Sanctions for violating the AI labeling duty are divided into administrative sanctions (fines) and civil liability (damages). ① Violation of the Framework Act on AI: Administrative Fines If an AI business operator fails to comply with the labeling duty or fails to notify the production of deepfakes, they will receive a corrective order from the Minister of Science and ICT. Failure to comply may result in an administrative fine of up to 30 million KRW. ② Violation of the Labeling & Advertising Act: Punitive Damages Beyond simple failure to label, if the act involves malicious false or exaggerated advertising (e.g., using fake experts), the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act applies. Current: Liability for damages up to 3 times the amount of damage. Proposed Amendment: The government is pushing for an amendment to increase this limit to up to 5 times to eradicate market disturbance. 5. Conclusion and Response The AI Labeling System is not a regulation saying "Do not use AI," but rather a standard of trust requiring "Transparency if AI is used." With the January 2026 implementation approaching, companies must review their internal compliance processes to prevent unnecessary legal disputes. The Corporate Law Team at Decent Law Firm provides professional assistance regarding AI and IT-related legal advisory and compliance system construction. Please feel free to contact us if you have any inquiries.
2026-01-07 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Essential Strategies to Check Before Consulting a Wage Claim Attorney
Unpaid Wages May Go Beyond a Simple Dispute Unpaid wages are not merely a civil monetary dispute. They may constitute a criminal violation of the Labor Standards Act, including Article 36 (Settlement of Monetary Claims) and Article 43 (Payment of Wages). Under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, such violations may result in criminal liability punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. In principle, unpaid wages constitute a violation of the Labor Standards Act regardless of the employer’s ability to pay or financial difficulties. An exception is recognized only in limited circumstances where, despite the employer’s full good-faith efforts, non-payment was unavoidable to a degree that is socially acceptable (Supreme Court Decision, October 9, 2008, Case No. 2008Do5984). Because unpaid wages directly affect an individual’s livelihood, this issue should never be treated lightly. We hope this article serves as a practical starting point for those currently facing anxiety and uncertainty over wage-related issues. Common Situations That Constitute Unpaid Wages Whether wages are unpaid is determined not by the employer’s explanation or circumstances, but by whether payment was actually made—and whether it was made on time. Substance prevails over form. When the following factors are present, the situation is likely to be deemed unpaid wages: Agreed wages or weekly holiday allowances were not paid on the scheduled payday Overtime, night, or holiday work was performed but the corresponding premiums were omitted Severance pay was not paid within 14 days after termination of employment Despite contractual labels, the worker was in fact under the employer’s direction and supervision Wage payment was delayed due to the company’s cash flow or financial issues Statements such as “payment was scheduled soon” or “the company was experiencing difficulties” do not, by themselves, excuse liability for unpaid wages. Article 43(2) of the Labor Standards Act requires wages to be paid at least once per month on a fixed date. Violation of this provision generally constitutes a breach of the Act. Liability may be exceptionally excluded only where it is socially recognized that payment was impossible despite the employer’s full and sincere efforts (Supreme Court Decision, October 9, 2008, Case No. 2008Do5984). Ultimately, Liability Falls on the Representative One of the most common responses in unpaid wage cases is the belief that “this is merely a company issue.” However, from the perspective of investigations and trials, unpaid wages are often attributed not to the company as an abstract entity, but to the individual representative who decided and managed wage payments. Key considerations include whether the representative determined the priority of fund disbursement, whether wages could have been paid but other expenses were chosen instead, and what actions were taken after becoming aware of the arrears. Explanations such as “the matter was handled by staff” or “it was delegated to the finance team” are frequently insufficient to disperse responsibility. Moreover, attitudes and explanations provided during labor office investigations are often reflected throughout subsequent proceedings. If wage issues are treated as internal disputes or handled without a clear legal framework at this stage, cases can quickly escalate into criminal liability—after which resolution through settlement or delayed payment becomes far more difficult. Unpaid wages are not merely the result of poor management decisions. If mishandled, they can lead to fines imposed on the representative personally, a criminal record, and enhanced penalties for repeated violations. This is no longer an issue that can be postponed—the initial judgment effectively determines the scope of liability. How Decent Law Firm Assists – When a Wage Claim Attorney Gets Involved, Outcomes Change Decent Law Firm does not approach unpaid wage cases as simple complaints or emotional disputes. We systematically analyze working hours, various wage components, and severance calculations, and design response strategies that comprehensively consider civil, criminal, and administrative procedures. The role of a wage claim attorney goes beyond drafting documents. It involves determining which procedures to pursue, at what timing, and how to respond at each stage to maximize the likelihood of recovery. Unpaid wage cases are ultimately a race against time. While hesitation and worry persist, the situation can quickly become more unfavorable. Do not take this issue lightly. Before it is too late, seek the assistance of a labor law specialist at an early stage.
2026-01-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Virtual Asset Service Providers Can Now Become Targets of Criminal Investigation
Why Was I Classified as a “Virtual Asset Service Provider”? Many people perceive their conduct as nothing more than simple promotion, operational support, referral activity, customer assistance, or community management. Some believe they never held or managed virtual assets themselves, and that a separate party operated the platform. However, in practice, this perception is often not accepted as it stands. Investigative authorities do not focus on labels or contractual form, but on the degree of actual involvement. What matters is how one contributed to attracting investors, how the activity was connected to the revenue structure, and whether such conduct was carried out continuously or repeatedly. At this stage, many individuals first experience a sense of crisis, realizing, “I didn’t know this could be illegal to this extent.” In reality, many virtual asset–related cases begin not with clear criminal intent, but with poor judgment and misunderstandings about the structure of the business. This article aims to provide practical guidance for those facing similar concerns. Please read the following carefully, as it outlines key issues that should not be overlooked. Legal Definition and Criteria for Determining a Virtual Asset Service Provider 1) Statutory Definition Under Article 2(1)(h) of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information and Article 2(2) of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, a “virtual asset service provider” refers to any person who, as a business, engages in activities related to virtual assets, including ① buying or selling, ② exchanging, ③ transferring, ④ safekeeping or managing, or ⑤ brokering, arranging, or acting as an intermediary. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Specified Financial Information Act, virtual asset service providers must report to the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). Any person who conducts virtual asset transactions as a business without filing such a report is subject to criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million (Article 17(1) of the same Act). 2) Standards Established by Supreme Court Precedent In determining whether a person qualifies as a virtual asset service provider, the Supreme Court has held that the key inquiry is whether the individual continuously and repeatedly engages in virtual asset transactions for profit. This determination must be made reasonably, based on social norms, by comprehensively considering factors such as the purpose, type, scale, frequency, duration, and manner of the transactions (Supreme Court Decision, December 12, 2024, Case No. 2024Do10710). The Court further clarified that a general user who continuously and repeatedly trades or exchanges virtual assets solely through an exchange for their own account and benefit would, absent special circumstances, be unlikely to qualify as a virtual asset service provider. However, a person who continuously and repeatedly conducts virtual asset transactions for the benefit of an unspecified number of customers or users, and receives compensation in return, may in principle be deemed a virtual asset service provider (Supreme Court Decision, September 11, 2025, Case No. 2024Do12420). 3) Practical Factors Considered in Investigations Investigative authorities prioritize substance over form. In practice, the likelihood of being classified as a virtual asset service provider increases when the following factors are combined: Access to or ability to manage investor funds or virtual assets Substantial involvement in transaction execution, operation, or intermediation A profit-oriented revenue structure, such as fees, performance-based compensation, or referral commissions Continuity, organization, and repetition of the activity Common Misunderstandings 1) “I Only Lent My Name” or “I Only Provided Technical Support” Such arguments are rarely accepted in practice. In criminal proceedings, courts focus not on formal titles or contractual arrangements, but on the actual performance of tasks and the allocation of profits. Where a conspiracy or joint participation is recognized, even a person who handled only part of the operations may be held jointly liable for the entire offense (Criminal Act, Article 30). 2) Overseas Exchanges, Foreign Corporations, or Offshore Servers Formal structures such as overseas exchanges, foreign entities, or relocating servers abroad do not, in themselves, constitute grounds for exemption from liability. Under Articles 3 and 6 of the Criminal Act, both Korean nationals and foreign nationals who commit crimes within the territory of the Republic of Korea are subject to Korean criminal law, and Korean nationals may also be subject to Korean law for crimes committed abroad. Accordingly, if a business structure targeting domestic users is identified, Korean criminal law may apply regardless of server location or place of incorporation. 3) “I Can File a Report Later” This assumption can lead to irreversible consequences. Article 17(1) of the Specified Financial Information Act imposes criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million on those who conduct virtual asset transactions as a business without filing a report. Such violations cannot be cured through ex post reporting. Moreover, to file a valid report as a virtual asset service provider, requirements such as ① obtaining Information Security Management System (ISMS) certification, and ② securing real-name verified deposit and withdrawal accounts must be satisfied (Article 7(3) of the same Act). Even if these requirements are met at a later stage, criminal liability for previously unreported business operations cannot be avoided. This is therefore a matter that should never be taken lightly. Decent Law Firm’s Assistance – Why Immediate Intervention Is Critical The most dangerous scenario in virtual asset cases arises when investigative authorities have already structured the case internally on the assumption that the individual is a virtual asset service provider, while the individual themselves remains unaware of this classification. In such circumstances, explanations offered may function not as a defense, but as confirmation. Decent Law Firm’s approach begins by dismantling and reassessing the structure of the case. We separate operational, promotional, technical, and financial elements by function and timeline, reorganizing the actual scope of involvement and examining whether the classification as a service provider itself can be contested. At the same time, we assess whether there is room to avoid designation as a principal or accomplice, and how far criminal liability may extend. Beyond criminal defense, we also evaluate long-term administrative risks, including FIU sanctions and future reporting restrictions. At this stage, the need for professional intervention is clear. A single misstep can lead to irreversible consequences. If you have already been contacted by authorities or informed of a potential change in your legal status, this is not a matter to assess on your own. In virtual asset service provider cases, the initial response strategy effectively determines the outcome. If you are reading this, you are still at a point where a strategic response can be formed.
2026-01-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If Recovering Losses from a Copy Trading Scam Is Urgent
1. How Copy Trading Scams Typically Begin Copy trading scams often start by gaining investors’ trust through phrases such as automated trading, professional management, or profit mirroring. Statements like “you don’t need to trade yourself” or “just follow a verified account” appear to reduce the burden of investment decisions. In fact, small profits may be generated in the early stages, making the scheme seem like a legitimate investment. However, after a certain period, a recurring pattern of inducing additional deposits begins. As the invested amount increases, withdrawals are delayed. Investors are asked to prepay fees or accept changing conditions, followed by loss of contact or restricted account access—at which point the damage becomes final. Unlike a simple investment loss, cases suspected to involve copy trading scams hinge on whether there was an intent to deceive investors and unlawfully obtain financial gain. Because this determination is made by comprehensively examining the transaction structure, fund management practices, and the operator’s conduct, becoming a victim without having the opportunity to explain one’s position is far from uncommon. 2. The Core Structure That Makes It Look Like a Legitimate Investment Copy trading scams are often highly sophisticated in appearance. They are designed to resemble lawful investment services through real-time trading screens, screenshots of profit verification, and performance graphs. Some even use interfaces similar to actual exchanges to eliminate suspicion. However, there is a clear gap between the structure perceived by the investor and the way the system is actually operated. Whether this discrepancy constitutes a violation of the duty to disclose material information or amounts to deceptive conduct depends on the specific facts of each case. If there is a material inconsistency between how the investment structure was explained and how it was actually operated—and that inconsistency influenced the investor’s decision—it may serve as a key basis for establishing fraud. 3. The Three Questions Victims Ask Most Frequently Q1. Can it still be considered fraud even if I actually made profits? Yes. Initial profit payouts are often used to build trust and induce additional deposits. The key issue is not whether profits occurred, but how those profits were generated. Q2. The account was in my name—can this still be considered fraud? What matters more than the account holder’s name is who actually controlled the trades and the funds. If the operator effectively controlled the transactions, it may be difficult to view the activity as a normal investment. Q3. When should I consider legal action if withdrawals are blocked? Once withdrawal conditions are repeatedly changed or additional payments are demanded, delaying a response is risky. If this is accompanied by avoidance of contact or account restrictions, immediate legal assessment is required. 4. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat copy trading scam cases as mere investment disputes. From the earliest stage, we focus not only on individual losses, but on the overall transaction structure and fund flows. We organize legal issues based on the substance of the investment method, the operator’s level of involvement, and indicators of fund control. Based on this analysis, we assess the feasibility of criminal complaints and investigation responses, while also considering parallel recovery measures such as civil damages claims or restitution of unjust enrichment. In copy trading scam cases, outcomes vary significantly depending on the initial response. Drawing on extensive experience with virtual asset and automated trading matters, we provide clear, practice-oriented strategies that reflect the key points investigators focus on. Accurately identifying the structure is what ultimately determines the direction of the case.
2026-01-05 Naver Blog
