-
BlogsThe CATFI Rug Pull Case and Unfair Trading Under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act
Meme coins often attract investors because they can be launched relatively quickly and may experience sharp price increases within a short period. Decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, facilitate trades through smart contracts and automated protocols rather than a centralized order-matching system. Once a token has been issued, trading can begin by creating a liquidity pool without going through the formal listing review typically required by a centralized exchange. This structure can attract investors seeking early exposure to newly launched tokens. At the same time, there has been growing concern over so-called rug pulls, in which project operators use false or misleading information to drive up the price of a token and then sell their holdings all at once. In May 2026, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office indicted individuals involved in the issuance of the meme coin CATFI on charges including violations of Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants circulated false positive announcements, manipulated the token’s trading activity, and obtained unlawful profits. The case was the first in which prosecutors applied the Act’s provisions on fraudulent unfair trading. This article examines the laws that may apply to rug pulls and the key legal issues arising from such cases. Laws That May Apply to Rug Pull Schemes A rug pull is not a separately defined criminal offense under Korean law. Depending on how the scheme was structured, several provisions may apply. Where false disclosures, artificial trading activity, or market manipulation are involved, Article 10 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, which prohibits unfair trading practices, may become relevant. Category Main Conduct Relevant Provision Use of material non-public information A virtual asset service provider, issuer, or other relevant party uses undisclosed material information for trading Article 10(1) Market manipulation through matched or wash trades Parties coordinate transactions in advance or conduct trades without a genuine transfer of economic ownership Article 10(2) Market manipulation through actual trades Trades are carried out to induce others to buy or sell by artificially moving the market price Article 10(3) Fraudulent unfair trading A person uses fraudulent means, schemes, or deceptive practices, or makes false statements about material facts Article 10(4) If the parties behind a rug pull used multiple wallets to trade among themselves and artificially inflate transaction volume, Article 10(2) may apply. If investors were attracted through false lock-up announcements, fabricated social media engagement, or other misleading representations, Article 10(4) may also become relevant. A violation of these provisions may result in imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equal to three to five times the profit obtained or loss avoided through the violation under Article 19(1). Where the unlawful profit or avoided loss is at least KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion, the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for at least three years. Where the amount is KRW 5 billion or more, the punishment may be life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least five years under Article 19(3). Separate from criminal penalties, the Financial Services Commission may also impose an administrative surcharge in connection with unfair trading conduct. Administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings are legally distinct and may be pursued through separate procedures. The CATFI Case and the Legal Test for a Rug Pull According to the prosecution, the individuals involved in CATFI divided their holdings across multiple wallets and announced a lock-up plan on social media even though the promised restrictions were not actually observed. An influencer allegedly presented himself as an independent third party with no connection to the issuing group and encouraged investors to purchase the token. The defendants were also accused of using multiple wallets to create the appearance of active trading and rising demand. Once purchases by ordinary investors increased, they sold their holdings in a large-scale disposal. The token reportedly increased in value by approximately 1,001 times within 26 hours of issuance. Around 6,000 individuals purchased the token, and 256 investors were found to have suffered losses totaling approximately KRW 900 million. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants used approximately KRW 10 million in initial funds and obtained roughly KRW 400 million in sale proceeds. At the first trial hearing held on June 30, 2026, the defendants admitted the charges. Prosecutors requested a sentence of four years and six months for the influencer alleged to have led the scheme. However, a sharp decline in a token’s price or the failure of a project does not automatically establish a criminal rug pull. Virtual asset investments inherently involve price volatility. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between a genuine business failure and a scheme designed from the outset to deceive investors and extract funds. In practice, investigators may examine whether: ▪️ The parties had planned to sell their holdings before the token was issued or concealed the true amount held by the project team ▪️ Lock-up or token-burning plans were falsely announced, or holdings were distributed across multiple wallets to disguise common ownership ▪️ Trading volume and price movements were artificially created, followed by the closure of social media channels or online communities immediately after the sale Key Legal Issues and Response Options 🔹Criminal Liability of Influencers and Marketing Personnel A person does not avoid criminal liability simply because they did not personally issue the token. An influencer, marketing agency, or account operator may be investigated as a principal offender or an accomplice if they coordinated with the issuing group, published false information, or recommended the token while falsely presenting themselves as an independent third party. Relevant evidence may include: ▪️ Records showing that tokens were transferred to the promoter before the marketing campaign ▪️ Messages concerning the sharing of sale proceeds or trading profits ▪️ Records showing that promotional content was published despite knowledge that the information was false These materials may be important in determining whether the person merely provided advertising services or knowingly participated in the scheme. 🔹Options for Investor Recovery Article 10(6) of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides that a person who violates the unfair trading provisions may be liable for losses caused to users by the violation. Accordingly, investors may consider a civil claim for damages separately from any criminal complaint or prosecution. In practice, however, recovery may be difficult where the issuer operated through anonymous wallets. Identifying the responsible parties and proving a causal connection between the unlawful conduct and the investment loss can require a detailed review of both blockchain records and online promotional materials. Investors should therefore preserve relevant evidence as early as possible, including wallet addresses, transaction hashes, purchase records, social media posts, and announcements concerning lock-ups, listings, or partnerships. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice The CATFI case demonstrates that even where a meme coin is traded through a DEX, false announcements, coordinated trading, and artificial price movements may lead to liability under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act. It also shows that affected investors may need to consider both criminal proceedings and civil claims for damages. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice reviews on-chain transaction structures and blockchain fund flows in connection with rug pulls, market manipulation, criminal complaints, investigations, and civil damages claims. Where an investment loss appears to involve a rug pull or other unfair trading conduct, legal advice should be obtained at an early stage, beginning with the preservation and review of evidence. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
2026-07-14 -
Blogs
DUI Fines in Korea: The Moment You Think ‘It Should Be Fine’ Is the Riskiest
How Are DUI Fines Determined by Law? Under Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, DUI fines are calculated in proportion to the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC). First Offense BAC Statutory Penalty 0.2% or higher Imprisonment of 2 to 5 years, or a fine of 10 million to 20 million KRW 0.08% to under 0.2% Imprisonment of 1 to 2 years, or a fine of 5 million to 10 million KRW 0.03% to under 0.08% Imprisonment of up to 1 year, or a fine of up to 5 million KRW Refusal of a breathalyzer test Imprisonment of 1 to 5 years, or a fine of 5 million to 20 million KRW Repeat Offense BAC Statutory Penalty 0.2% or higher Imprisonment of 2 to 6 years, or a fine of 10 million to 30 million KRW 0.03% to under 0.2% Imprisonment of 1 to 5 years, or a fine of 5 million to 20 million KRW Refusal of a breathalyzer test Imprisonment of 1 to 6 years, or a fine of 5 million to 30 million KRW Because a difference of just a fraction of a percentage point in BAC can shift the entire sentencing range, confirming the exact number and responding early are essential. From Arrest to Punishment: What Is the Process? When someone is caught driving under the influence, the case typically proceeds through the following steps. On-site enforcement - BAC is measured with a breathalyzer Case filing and investigation - Police examine the circumstances of the driving and any prior record Referral to the prosecution - The case file is forwarded to the prosecutor's office Summary or formal indictment - The procedure branches depending on whether an accident occurred and whether it is a repeat offense Trial and sentencing - A summary order results in a fine; a formal trial can lead to actual imprisonment Because the initial statement and supporting materials prepared at this stage have a decisive impact on the final fine amount and whether prison time is imposed, getting legal help immediately after being caught is essential. A Real Case: How a DUI Fine Case Played Out [Case We Handled] Mr. B, a man in his 40s, was caught with a BAC of 0.09% and faced the risk of being referred to a formal trial. Even though it was his first offense and no accident had occurred, Mr. B was alarmed to learn he could still face a formal trial. From the early stage of the investigation, he worked with counsel to systematically prepare favorable materials, including an explanation of the circumstances of his driving and a pledge against reoffending. Thanks to this prompt response, the case was resolved through a summary order instead of a formal indictment, ending in a DUI fine rather than a trial. This shows how much the outcome of a DUI fine case can change depending on how early and how well the response is prepared. Why You Should Work With Decent Law DUI fine cases require professional handling in the following areas. Accurate interpretation of BAC test results Preparing supporting materials and statements of reflection to help secure a summary order Building a long-term defense strategy that also accounts for the risk of enhanced punishment for repeat offenses Decent Law draws on extensive experience handling DUI cases to closely analyze each client's situation and build a systematic defense strategy from the early investigation stage through trial. We stay with our clients from start to finish, so that no one is left at a disadvantage while shaken by an unexpected DUI fine and criminal record. DUI fine cases are a textbook example of matters that become harder to handle as time passes. If you have already been investigated or are facing an upcoming summons, we recommend consulting an attorney experienced in criminal cases rather than making decisions on your own. Decent Law Office is always ready to provide prompt, accurate legal advice to help you find the best path forward for your situation.
2026-07-14 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Virtual Asset “Hwanchigi” in Korea: Penalties and Key Changes Under the 2026 Foreign Exchange Transactions Act
As cross-border transactions involving virtual assets and overseas payment services continue to increase, Korean regulators are paying closer attention to whether such transactions constitute unlicensed foreign exchange business or illegal remittance activities. The Korea Customs Service recently conducted targeted inspections of high-risk money exchange businesses and identified violations involving false transaction records, foreign currency sales exceeding statutory limits, and failures to report large cash transactions. The businesses selected for inspection also included entities suspected of using virtual assets for illegal cross-border remittances. A major regulatory change will take effect on December 3, 2026, when the amended Foreign Exchange Transactions Act comes into force. Under the amended Act, certain cross-border virtual asset transfer services will become subject to a separate registration requirement. Virtual asset service providers, payment companies, remittance operators, and businesses offering cross-border settlement services should review whether their current business models fall within the scope of the new registration regime. What Is “Hwanchigi” Under Korean Law? “Hwanchigi” is not a term expressly defined in the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. It generally refers to an arrangement in which funds are transferred across borders without using a bank or another authorized foreign exchange institution. Instead, separate pools of funds or accounts in Korea and another country are used to produce the same economic effect as an international remittance. For example, a person in Korea may pay Korean won to a local operator, while the operator’s overseas partner pays an equivalent amount in foreign currency to the intended recipient abroad. The Korean won received in Korea is not physically transferred overseas. Nevertheless, because a corresponding payment is made abroad, the arrangement produces substantially the same result as an international remittance. Article 8 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act generally requires a person who engages in foreign exchange business as a commercial activity to obtain the necessary registration. A person may therefore be regarded as participating in foreign exchange business even if they did not personally send money overseas, provided that their role formed part of a broader structure designed to complete a cross-border payment. A Transaction May Be Regulated Even If No Foreign Currency Crosses the Border Under Korean foreign exchange law, the key issue is not whether the same cash or foreign currency physically crossed the border. What matters is whether payments made in Korea and abroad were connected in a manner that produced the same economic effect as a cross-border transfer. Common structures that may raise regulatory concerns include the following. ▪️ Korean Won Received in Korea and Foreign Currency Paid Overseas A Korean account receives the funds, while an overseas partner or local office pays foreign currency to the designated recipient abroad. ▪️ Funds Received Overseas and Korean Won Paid in Korea Foreign currency or local currency is received outside Korea, and Korean won is then paid into a designated Korean bank account. ▪️ Settlement Through Third-Party Accounts Funds are paid or received through accounts held by family members, employees, acquaintances, or unrelated business entities rather than the actual sender or recipient. ▪️ Offshore and Domestic Obligations Offset Against Each Other Amounts payable in Korea and abroad are offset, allowing the parties to settle without making a conventional international bank transfer. If these transactions are conducted repeatedly and the operator earns fees or profits from exchange-rate differences, the activity may be treated as unregistered foreign exchange business. Why the Supreme Court Treated Virtual Asset Arbitrage as Foreign Exchange Business In its September 4, 2025 decision, Supreme Court Case No. 2024Do16540, the Court confirmed that a transaction may constitute foreign exchange business even where no foreign currency was directly transferred across the border. In that case, the defendant received virtual assets from a non-resident located overseas, sold them through a Korean virtual asset exchange, and transferred the proceeds in Korean won to multiple domestic bank accounts designated by the non-resident. The defendant did not personally remit foreign currency overseas. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s finding that the transaction performed substantially the same function as an inbound remittance service, in which a Korean foreign exchange bank pays Korean won to a domestic recipient based on payment instructions from a foreign bank. The relevant question was therefore not simply whether the defendant had directly sent funds abroad. The Court examined whether the overall transaction structure effectively facilitated payments between Korea and another country. However, the sale of virtual assets followed by a domestic Korean won transfer does not automatically constitute unregistered foreign exchange business in every case. The following factors should be considered together: ▪️ The purpose and background of the transaction ▪️ The size and frequency of the transactions ▪️ The duration and degree of repetition ▪️ Whether fees or exchange-rate profits were earned ▪️ Whether the activity was conducted as a business Can Virtual Assets and Overseas Payment Services Be Treated as Hwanchigi? The use of virtual assets or overseas payment services does not, by itself, exclude a transaction from the application of Korean foreign exchange laws. ▪️ Receiving Korean Won and Sending Virtual Assets to an Overseas Wallet Where Korean won is received in Korea and Bitcoin, USDT, or another virtual asset is sent to an overseas recipient in return, the transaction may be treated as a cross-border payment service rather than a simple virtual asset sale. ▪️ Receiving Virtual Assets Overseas and Paying Korean Won in Korea A transaction may also be treated as cross-border payment activity where virtual assets received from overseas are sold in Korea and the proceeds are paid into domestic accounts designated by the overseas party. ▪️ Settling Funds Through WeChat Pay or Alipay Regulatory concerns may arise where Korean won is received in Korea and an overseas payment account is funded abroad, or where funds are received overseas and Korean won is paid to a recipient in Korea. These transactions are not automatically illegal. The authorities will generally examine: ▪️ Whether the domestic payment corresponded to an overseas payment ▪️ Whether third-party accounts were used ▪️ Whether the activity was repeated ▪️ Whether the operator earned fees or exchange-rate profits ▪️ Whether the transaction was conducted for a commercial purpose Key Changes Under the 2026 Amendment to the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act The amended Foreign Exchange Transactions Act was promulgated on June 2, 2026 and will take effect on December 3, 2026. The amendment introduces three major changes. ▪️ Registration Requirement for Cross-Border Virtual Asset Transfer Services A virtual asset service provider that uses virtual asset sales, purchases, or exchanges to transfer value between Korea and another country, or to produce substantially the same effect, will be required to register with the Minister of Economy and Finance. A virtual asset service provider registration under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information may not be sufficient by itself. A separate registration under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act may be required where the business provides cross-border virtual asset transfer services. ▪️ Stronger Administrative Sanctions for Operating Outside the Registered Scope A specialized foreign exchange business operator that conducts foreign exchange activities outside its registered scope may be subject to: ▪️ Cancellation of registration ▪️ Business restrictions ▪️ Suspension of business ▪️ Administrative surcharges imposed in place of certain suspension measures Businesses should therefore confirm that their actual services remain within the scope of their registration. ▪️ Criminal Penalties for Unregistered Business and Certain Payment Procedure Violations A person who conducts cross-border virtual asset transfer business without registration may be subject to: ▪️ Imprisonment for up to three years ▪️ A fine of up to KRW 300 million The amended Act also introduces criminal penalties of: ▪️ Imprisonment for up to one year ▪️ A fine of up to KRW 100 million These penalties may apply where a person violates prescribed payment procedures for the purpose of obtaining an improper financial benefit for themselves or another person. The amendment does more than simply clarify which businesses must register. It expressly brings cross-border virtual asset transfer services within the registration framework and clarifies the scope of criminal liability for unregistered activities and certain payment procedure violations. The Substance of the Fund Flow Matters More Than the Name of the Transaction Virtual asset-based hwanchigi and arbitrage cases are primarily governed by the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. Depending on the transaction structure, the following laws may also apply: ▪️ The Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information ▪️ The Virtual Asset User Protection Act ▪️ Other criminal and financial regulations related to money laundering, fraud, or unlawful fund transfers Businesses and individuals should review the entire flow of funds, including: ▪️ The roles of the parties ▪️ Domestic and overseas bank transactions ▪️ Wallet transfers and transaction records ▪️ Fee and exchange-rate arrangements ▪️ The frequency and commercial nature of the activity Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Group advises clients on investigations involving alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and virtual asset-based remittance activities. We also assist virtual asset businesses, payment providers, and cross-border settlement operators in assessing whether their services are subject to registration under the amended Act. Where the Korea Customs Service or the police requests attendance or submission of documents, or where a business needs to determine whether its services fall within the amended regulatory framework, the transaction structure and supporting records should be reviewed before responding. This publication is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
2026-07-13 Naver Blog -
Blogs
DUI Traffic Stops in Korea: Penalties and Key Legal Issues at the Scene
As public concern over drunk driving continues to grow in Korea, law enforcement agencies are applying DUI laws and enforcement standards more strictly. Many foreign residents and visitors are aware that blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, is the primary factor in a DUI case. However, statements made at the scene, the driver’s conduct during testing, and the circumstances surrounding the driving may also be reviewed during the investigation and court proceedings. This article explains the penalties for drunk driving under Korean law and the legal significance of how a driver responds during and immediately after a traffic stop. DUI Penalties Under Korean Law Article 148-2 of the Korean Road Traffic Act sets different criminal penalties depending on the driver’s BAC level. Category Blood Alcohol Concentration Criminal Penalty Level 1 0.03% to less than 0.08% Imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine of up to KRW 5 million Level 2 0.08% to less than 0.2% Imprisonment for 1 to 2 years or a fine of KRW 5 million to KRW 10 million Level 3 0.2% or higher Imprisonment for 2 to 5 years or a fine of KRW 10 million to KRW 20 million Refusal to Submit to Testing Refusal without a legally valid reason Imprisonment for 1 to 5 years or a fine of KRW 5 million to KRW 20 million Source: Article 148-2 of the Korean Road Traffic Act These are the general statutory ranges. A person who commits another DUI-related offense within 10 years after a previous DUI, test-refusal, or test-interference conviction may be subject to aggravated penalties. Administrative sanctions may also be imposed separately from criminal penalties. A BAC of 0.03% to less than 0.08% generally results in a driver’s license suspension, while a BAC of 0.08% or higher generally results in license revocation. License revocation may also apply where drunk driving causes bodily injury or death. The precise administrative measure may vary depending on the circumstances and the standards prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. How Korean Courts Assess BAC and Conduct at the Scene Where there is a time gap between the driving and the BAC test, the Supreme Court of Korea has held that the driver’s BAC at the time of driving must be assessed by considering the surrounding circumstances as a whole. “The determination must be made reasonably, in accordance with logic and common experience, by comprehensively considering factors established by the evidence, including the time interval between driving and testing, the difference between the measured blood alcohol concentration and the statutory threshold, the duration and amount of drinking, the driver’s conduct at the time of the traffic stop and testing, and, where a traffic accident occurred, the circumstances surrounding the accident.” — Supreme Court of Korea, Decision 2013Do6285, October 24, 2013 This means that the measured BAC is not always considered in isolation. The driver’s behavior, statements, drinking history, timing of the test, and any accident-related circumstances may also be taken into account. Statements made at the scene may therefore become evidence regarding how and why the person drove. An explanation intended to minimize the incident may later be interpreted as an admission that the person knowingly chose to drive after drinking. Key Legal Issues After a DUI Traffic Stop ▪️Statements Made at the Scene A written or verbal statement may be used to establish the driving circumstances, distance traveled, reason for driving, and the driver’s awareness of the situation. Expressions such as “I only drove a short distance” or “I was just moving the car” may not necessarily reduce liability. Depending on the context, they may instead confirm that the person voluntarily operated the vehicle after drinking. ▪️Legality of the Testing Procedure The time of testing, the method used, whether a second test was requested or conducted, and whether the applicable procedures were followed may require legal review. A procedural issue does not automatically invalidate a BAC result, but the accuracy and admissibility of the evidence should be assessed based on the specific facts. ▪️Involvement in a Traffic Accident The consequences may differ significantly depending on whether the incident involved only property damage, bodily injury, or death. An accident may lead to additional criminal charges, increased sentencing exposure, and more severe administrative penalties. ▪️Refusal to Submit to Testing Refusing a lawful breath test without a valid reason does not generally provide a legal advantage. Under Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, refusal may result in imprisonment for 1 to 5 years or a fine of KRW 5 million to KRW 20 million. A driver should therefore avoid making an impulsive decision to refuse testing and should seek legal advice regarding any procedural concerns. Why Legal Advice May Still Matter After Testing Some drivers assume that there is no reason to contact a lawyer once a BAC test has already been completed. The BAC result is a central piece of evidence, but the case does not end with the test. Statements concerning the driving distance, reason for driving, drinking timeline, accident circumstances, and post-incident conduct may affect the investigation, charging decision, sentencing, and administrative proceedings. Early legal review can help clarify what evidence has already been created, identify procedural issues, prepare for questioning, and organize relevant sentencing materials. 24/7 DUI Response by Decent Law Firm’s Criminal Defense Team Decent Law Firm’s Criminal Defense Team assists clients from the initial traffic stop and police investigation through criminal proceedings and sentencing preparation. Our team provides 24-hour consultations and, where necessary, on-site assistance for urgent criminal matters. We also assist foreign clients in understanding Korean investigative procedures and preparing for police questioning. Those currently at a DUI checkpoint or scheduled for questioning should obtain legal advice before making additional statements or submitting further documents. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any individual case.
2026-07-10 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Stalking No-Contact Orders: This Is Really Your Last Chance
What Does a Stalking No-Contact Order Mean Legally? Under Korea's Anti-Stalking Act, a no-contact order is a measure that restricts the access of a person identified as the offender in order to protect the victim's safety. Divided into emergency measures issued on-site by police and provisional measures decided by the court Violation can result in up to 2 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million — a serious measure Specific types include a ban on approaching the other party or their home/workplace within 100 meters, and a ban on contact via telecommunications Legal effect takes place immediately upon notice, making it difficult for the recipient to judge the situation calmly in many cases As such, because a stalking no-contact order is decided quickly regardless of intent, it is important to accurately understand the content as soon as you receive notice. * Failing to comply with a provisional measure can result in up to 2 years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million; failing to comply with an emergency measure can result in up to 1 year's imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 10 million — both serious consequences. From Notice to Trial: How Does the Process Proceed? Stalking no-contact order cases generally proceed through the following steps. 1️⃣ 112 Report – The case begins with the victim's report 2️⃣ On-site Investigation and Emergency Measures – Police immediately impose measures such as a no-contact order 3️⃣ Request for Provisional Measures – Upon request from the judicial police officer, the prosecutor requests new provisional measures from the court 4️⃣ Court Hearing and Decision – The period and scope of the no-contact order are finalized 5️⃣ Criminal Case Upon Violation – If the measure is violated, a separate investigation and prosecution follow Because the initial response and organization of evidence at this stage significantly affect the entire process that follows, it is critical to seek legal assistance as soon as you receive notice of a stalking no-contact order. A Real Case: How a Stalking No-Contact Order Case Played Out [Case We Handled] Mr. B, a man in his 40s, was notified of a stalking no-contact order after repeatedly attempting to contact his ex-partner to clear up a misunderstanding. From the early stage of the notice, Mr. B received legal assistance to organize a statement of circumstances and related materials and filed an appeal, resulting in an adjustment to the scope of the no-contact order and, later, a non-prosecution decision at the investigation stage. * Note that outcomes may vary by case depending on the circumstances and evidence involved. As shown here, the outcome of a stalking no-contact order case can differ significantly depending on how it is handled from the outset. Why You Should Work With Decent Stalking no-contact order cases require professional handling in the following areas. Accurate interpretation of the measure and pursuing an appeal against it Coordinating the relationship with the victim and demonstrating prevention of recurrence Establishing a strategy for responding to investigative authorities and securing the right to defend one's statements Decent draws on extensive experience handling stalking cases to closely analyze each client's situation and build a systematic defense strategy from the initial notice through investigation and trial. Stalking no-contact orders are a case type where the difficulty of responding increases as time passes. If you have already received notice or are facing an upcoming investigation, we recommend consulting with a criminal defense attorney experienced in these matters rather than deciding on your own. Decent Law Firm is always ready to provide prompt, accurate legal consultation to help you find the best path forward for your situation.
2026-07-10 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Can Mere Participation in a Group Chat Lead to a Finding of School Violence in Korea?
As cyberbullying through group chats becomes more common, students who did not directly post insulting or defamatory messages are increasingly being included in school violence investigations conducted under Korea’s school violence response system. In many cases, students and their parents assume that there will be no consequences because the student did not personally use abusive language. However, investigators and the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee may examine not only whether the student made direct comments, but also how the student participated in the chat and reacted to the conduct of others. This article explains how Korean law and court decisions assess a student’s level of participation in a group chat and how the severity of a school violence measure may affect the student in practice. Cyberbullying, Social Exclusion, and Disciplinary Measures under Korean Law Article 2 of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against Violence in Schools expressly includes both social exclusion and cyberbullying within the definition of school violence. Under the Act, social exclusion generally refers to conduct in which two or more students repeatedly subject a particular student to physical or psychological attacks that cause distress. Cyberbullying includes social exclusion and other conduct carried out through information and communications networks that causes physical, psychological, or financial harm. When school violence is established, the School Violence Countermeasures Deliberation Committee may request that the superintendent of the relevant local education office impose one or more of the following measures on the student responsible. Measure Description Measures 1–3 Written apology, prohibition on contact, threats, or retaliation, and school-based community service Measures 4–6 Community service, special education or psychological treatment, and suspension from school Measures 7–8 Transfer to another class or another school Measure 9 Expulsion, except for students in compulsory education Source: Article 17(1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Countermeasures Against Violence in Schools A student or parent who disagrees with a measure may challenge it through an administrative appeal under Article 17-2 or an administrative lawsuit under Article 17-3 of the Act. How Korean Courts Assess Participation in a Group Chat Korean courts interpret the concept of school violence broadly. In Seoul Administrative Court Case No. 2014Guhap250, the court held that school violence is not limited to the specific categories listed in the statute, such as assault, defamation, or insult. It may also include similar conduct that causes physical, psychological, or financial harm to a student. Courts have also distinguished cases according to the extent of the student’s participation. In Seoul Central District Court Case No. 2017Kahap80876, the court considered disparaging remarks exchanged in a group chat that the alleged victim had not joined. The court held that it was necessary to examine whether the conduct was directed at causing harm to the student at the time it occurred and whether actual harm resulted. The later disclosure of the chat, by itself, was not necessarily sufficient to establish school violence. Practical investigation guidelines also reflect the importance of the degree of participation. Guidance issued by Korea’s Ministry of Education and local education authorities recognizes that school violence may arise not only between the direct aggressor and the victim, but also in a broader peer environment involving students who encourage, support, or passively tolerate the conduct. As a result, investigators may review the statements and reactions of all participants in the group chat. Accordingly, the absence of a direct insulting message does not automatically exclude a student from the investigation. At the same time, simply being present in a group chat does not, by itself, establish participation in school violence. The decision may depend on whether the student repeatedly reacted in support of ridicule or exclusion, actively encouraged the conduct, helped spread the content, or otherwise participated in a way that contributed to the harm. Factors Used to Determine the Level of Participation During the investigation and committee review, the following factors may be considered together. ▪️Frequency and content of messages Even where the student did not post direct insults, repeated emojis, short comments, or other reactions supporting the ridicule may be viewed as evidence of participation. ▪️Reason for remaining in the group chat Investigators may examine whether the student understood that the conduct was continuing, how long the student remained in the chat, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for not leaving, such as the chat also being used for class notices or group activities. ▪️Scope and context of screenshots Screenshots are often used as key investigative materials, even when the original messages have been deleted. However, a partial screenshot may not show the entire context, so the messages before and after the captured conversation should also be reviewed where possible. The Practical Impact of Different School Violence Measures The retention period of a school violence measure in a student’s school record differs according to the level of the measure. Measure General Retention Period Measures 1–3 Generally deleted upon graduation Measures 4–6 Retained for two years after graduation Measures 7–8 Retained for four years after graduation Measure 9 Not subject to ordinary deletion Source: Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Measures 4 through 7 may, in certain circumstances, be deleted upon graduation if the student has faithfully completed the measure and is considered unlikely to reoffend, following review by the school’s dedicated school violence body. Beginning with the 2026 university admissions cycle, school violence records must be reflected across university admissions pathways in Korea. The specific method of assessment varies by university, but the level of the measure may have a direct impact on the student’s admissions prospects. For this reason, where a student’s role in a group chat is unclear, it is important to explain the entire conversation, the student’s actual level of participation, and the reason the student remained in the chat from the earliest stage of the investigation. Legal Support for Group Chat and Cyberbullying Cases Group chat and cyberbullying matters may involve several stages, including the review of chat screenshots, assessment of the student’s level of participation, preparation for investigator interviews and committee proceedings, and, where necessary, administrative appeals or litigation challenging the final measure. The School Violence Practice Team at Decent Law Firm advises students and parents from the initial investigation stage through committee proceedings and post-decision challenges. Where a child has received notice of an investigation involving a group chat, the full conversation and the circumstances of the child’s participation should be reviewed before a written statement is submitted. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
2026-07-09 Naver Blog
