-
BlogsIs Crypto Referral Legal? Why Financial Authority Press Releases Are Not Enough
Following a recent press release by the Financial Services Commission (FSC), inquiries regarding the legality of crypto referral programs have increased significantly. Many businesses that use exchange referral codes for marketing, investment advisory services, or community operations are now concerned about potential violations of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “AML Act”). However, the legality of crypto referral programs cannot be determined solely based on an FSC press release. In practice, legal assessments must take into account the statutory provisions of the AML Act, relevant court decisions, and investigative standards applied by law enforcement authorities. The Meaning and Limitations of the FSC Press Release In its press release, the FSC suggested that certain referral structures could constitute brokerage or intermediary activities involving virtual asset exchanges. It is important to note, however, that this position reflects an administrative interpretation, not a binding judicial ruling or settled legal doctrine. When legal liability is at issue, courts ultimately determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether a specific referral structure satisfies the statutory elements of a regulated virtual asset service provider under the AML Act. Accordingly, it is legally inappropriate to conclude that all referral programs are unlawful based solely on regulatory commentary. The Core Legal Issue Under the AML Act Article 7 of the AML Act imposes reporting obligations on virtual asset service providers. The key question is whether a referral program goes beyond simple advertising or promotion and instead constitutes the business of brokering or intermediating the purchase, sale, or exchange of virtual assets. In making this determination, authorities focus not on the mere use of referral codes, but on substantive factors such as whether the operator intervenes in transaction structures, influences investment decisions, controls the flow of funds, or effectively forces users to use a specific exchange. Absent these elements, referral activities are generally viewed as marketing rather than brokerage. Guidance from Court Decisions and Investigative Practice Court rulings and multiple non-indictment decisions indicate a consistent approach: referral programs are often characterized as marketing arrangements provided by exchanges, carried out based on users’ voluntary choices. Where the operator does not execute trades, handle customer funds, or mandate the use of a specific exchange, it is difficult to classify such activities as regulated virtual asset services. In practice, investigative authorities tend to focus less on the existence of a referral program itself and more on whether it is combined with fraudulent conduct, unregistered business operations, or substantive involvement in investment decisions. Key Considerations for Crypto Referral Businesses That said, not all referral structures are risk-free. Legal concerns may arise where a business repeatedly promotes only a single exchange, excludes alternative options, or combines referral activities with investment guidance that materially affects users’ decisions. In such cases, the activity may be viewed as de facto brokerage or intermediation. Ultimately, the legality of a crypto referral program depends not on its label, but on whether the overall business structure can be legally justified under the AML Act. Businesses that currently operate referral programs—or are considering implementing them—should carefully assess their structure before regulatory or investigative issues arise. Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team provides legal opinions on the compliance of crypto referral structures, evaluates AML Act risks, and assists clients in preparing for potential regulatory or investigative scrutiny. Crypto referrals are not simply a question of “legal or illegal,” but whether the structure can be clearly explained and defended under the law. If you require a legal review of your crypto referral business model, consulting experienced legal professionals at an early stage can be a critical step in risk management.
2026-02-04 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You Need Help Understanding the Meaning, Timeline, and Supreme Court Precedents on Lawsuits to Confirm Worker Status
Why Lawsuits to Confirm Worker Status Matter Even when contracts are signed under labels such as “freelancer,” “outsourcing,” or “independent contractor,” the first and most critical issue in a dispute is whether the individual legally qualifies as a “worker.” A lawsuit to confirm worker status is the procedure that definitively resolves this issue, and it serves as the starting point for all subsequent legal determinations, including wages, severance pay, the legality of dismissal, and entitlement to social insurance. Once worker status is recognized, the protective provisions of the Labor Standards Act—covering wages, severance pay, and restrictions on dismissal—apply retroactively. As a result, previously unsettled rights and obligations are determined all at once (Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act). This makes the issue a source of real protection for one party and, at the same time, a significant legal burden for the other. Above all, if the initial approach is misdirected, it can lead to legal risks that are difficult to remedy later. For this reason, the issue must never be approached lightly. How Courts Determine Worker Status When determining whether an individual qualifies as a worker, courts do not focus on the form or title of the contract. Instead, they examine the substance of the working relationship—specifically, whether the individual provided labor to the employer in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of receiving wages. In practice, courts comprehensively consider economic and social factors such as: Whether the employer determines the content of the work and exercises substantial direction and supervision over how it is performed Whether the employer designates working hours and the workplace, and whether the individual is bound by such designation Whether the individual can independently operate a business at their own expense and responsibility Whether the individual bears the risks of profit and loss arising from the provision of labor Whether the remuneration constitutes compensation for the labor itself Whether a base salary or fixed compensation is set, and whether wage income tax is withheld The continuity of the working relationship and the degree of exclusivity toward the employer Whether the individual is recognized as a worker under social security systems That said, factors such as the existence of a fixed salary, withholding of wage income tax, or recognition under social insurance schemes are matters the employer—often in a stronger economic position—can unilaterally determine. Therefore, worker status should not be easily denied based on these factors alone. In short, no single element is determinative. The key lies in assessing the overall structure and substance of the working relationship. Practical Issues That Commonly Arise in Disputes In lawsuits to confirm worker status, the burden of proving worker status generally lies with the individual asserting it (Supreme Court Decision dated June 25, 2020, Case No. 2020Da207864). Accordingly, it is essential to secure concrete evidence that demonstrates actual working conditions and the existence of direction and supervision. In practice, claims for unpaid wages or severance pay are often combined with a worker status confirmation claim. If worker status is recognized, rights are applied retroactively, which can significantly expand the scope of the dispute and the associated risks. As a result, the later a strategic approach is taken, the greater the financial and legal burden becomes for the parties involved. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to Lawsuits Confirming Worker Status In lawsuits to confirm worker status, the most important task is not merely asserting that worker status exists, but proving—through concrete facts—that the substance of the labor relationship constitutes a relationship of subordination to the employer. Decent Law Firm approaches these cases by focusing on the actual substance of the working relationship, rather than the form or title of the contract, and by structuring the facts in a way that allows the court to make a clear legal determination. We also view worker status confirmation lawsuits not as isolated win-or-lose cases, but as the starting point of the entire dispute. In doing so, we comprehensively assess the client’s situation and the potential legal risks that may arise after the judgment, and set a strategy aimed at minimizing burdens that could extend beyond the outcome itself. A lawsuit to confirm worker status is a procedure that should never be taken lightly. This is precisely why professional legal assistance is essential from the initial planning stage onward.
2026-02-03 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You Are Facing Potential Criminal Liability in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation, This Is Essential Reading
Treating a Voice Phishing Police Investigation as “Witness Questioning” May Already Be Too Late In voice phishing cases, a police investigation may begin either as a witness interview or, from the outset, as a suspect interrogation, depending on the circumstances. Once investigative authorities recognize the existence of criminal suspicion and commence an investigation, suspect status is established, and the rights of a suspect—including the right to remain silent—must be guaranteed (Supreme Court of Korea, June 24, 2010, Decision 2008Do12127). However, even if an investigation begins as a witness interview, the individual’s status may be converted to that of a suspect as allegations become more concrete during questioning. For this reason, careful and strategic action is required from the very early stages. At the initial stage, investigators typically focus on quickly structuring the case around key issues such as whether bank accounts were provided, whether the individual was involved in the delivery or collection of cash, how instructions were received, and whether any form of compensation was involved. Depending on the direction of the statements made at this stage, the assessment may shift toward viewing the individual as a minor participant, an aider and abettor, or a co-perpetrator. Why Saying “I Didn’t Know” Rarely Works in Voice Phishing Cases In voice phishing investigations, the core issue is not merely whether the individual subjectively recognized the crime, but whether they were aware of the possibility of criminal conduct and nonetheless accepted that risk. Even if a person claims they did not explicitly recognize the conduct as criminal, criminal liability may still be established where dolus eventualis (conditional intent) is found based on factors such as abnormal transaction structures, repeated involvement, or the existence of financial compensation. In practice, statements such as “I thought it was suspicious but followed instructions anyway” or “I didn’t know it was illegal” frequently become decisive issues during investigations. Courts have recognized conditional intent in such cases by comprehensively considering factors including the abnormality of the transaction structure, repeated participation, the existence of monetary compensation, the general social awareness of voice phishing schemes, and any prior experience with similar incidents (Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606; Seoul Southern District Court, Oct. 28, 2020, Decision 2020GoDan3736). While claims of good faith may be emotionally understandable, entirely different standards apply in legal evaluation. The Most Critical Point in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation: Initial Response Making spontaneous statements without legal counsel during the early stage of an investigation, or submitting to mobile phone and messenger forensic analysis without preparation, carries significant risk. In particular, many cases follow the same pattern: after being told that “telling the truth will be fine,” individuals provide a full account of events, only to find that the issue later shifts to whether they qualify as an aider, abettor, or co-offender. Subsequent procedures often progress far more quickly than expected. Depending on the initial response, cases that could have ended in non-referral at the police stage may proceed to prosecutorial dispositions such as suspension of indictment, summary indictment, or even a full criminal trial. Each outcome carries distinct legal consequences, making it essential to carefully determine the direction of the case from the very beginning. A voice phishing police investigation is not a one-time questioning process; failure at the initial response stage often directly determines the final outcome. Why Legal Assistance from Decent Law Firm Is Essential in Voice Phishing Police Investigations Decent Law Firm does not merely organize post hoc explanations in voice phishing police investigations. Before suspect status is formally fixed, we analyze the structure of the case and legally design the scope and direction of statements. Not all acts of providing accounts or transferring funds result in identical criminal liability. Co-perpetration under Article 30 of the Criminal Act and aiding and abetting under Article 32 are distinguished based on the degree of joint intent and functional control over the execution of the crime (Incheon District Court, Nov. 26, 2015, Decisions 2015GoDan2502 and 2015GoDan2957 (consolidated)). Even in the case of aiding and abetting, conditional awareness or foreseeability of the principal offender’s crime is sufficient to establish liability (Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606). Because these legal boundaries must be determined through case-specific analysis, professional legal review is essential from the earliest stage. If statements recorded in investigative records are not strategically managed, reversing their impact in later proceedings becomes extremely difficult. A voice phishing police investigation should never be taken lightly. If an investigation has already begun, attempting to explain everything alone is not the solution. A structured approach—starting with a careful review of the case framework—is required.
2026-02-03 Naver Blog -
Blogs
The Legal Boundaries of Virtual Assets Through the Lens of the Bitcoin Whitepaper
The Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Not a “Manual,” but a Legal Benchmark Many people understand the Bitcoin whitepaper as nothing more than a technical document. In actual disputes or criminal investigations, however, the whitepaper functions not as a simple explanation, but as the starting point for legal judgment. The contents of a whitepaper serve as key evidence in determining how a project was structured, what assumptions underpinned its design, and what representations were made to users or investors. The assumption that “having a whitepaper makes a project lawful” is therefore highly dangerous. If, at an early stage, a project adopts or modifies the structure of Bitcoin without proper legal review, and the actual operational model differs from what was explained to investors, such conduct may be evaluated as deceptive. In particular, where a project promises principal protection or high returns while in practice paying earlier participants using funds from later investors—a so-called Ponzi scheme—fraud charges may be established (see Seoul High Court Decision, Aug. 7, 2020, Case No. 2020No596). From this point onward, the matter clearly exceeds the limits of what an individual or business can assess on its own. For those losing sleep over these concerns, meaningful solutions do not begin with technology, but with a legal perspective. Risks That Arise When the Whitepaper and Actual Operations Diverge Problems arise when elements that do not exist in the Bitcoin whitepaper are added during real-world business operations. Typical examples include discrepancies in profit-sharing methods, reward mechanisms, or the identity of the actual operator compared to what is described in the whitepaper. When technical explanations and business operations are not clearly separated—particularly where multi-level membership recruitment structures or principal-guarantee arrangements are involved—the structure may constitute violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Authorization or the Door-to-Door Sales Act. Furthermore, if high returns are promised to investors despite the absence of any realistic ability to generate such returns, fraud liability may arise. The extent to which discrepancies between a whitepaper and actual operations are legally tolerable is assessed from the standpoint of investor protection and transactional fairness. Legal liability is especially likely to arise in cases such as the following: The whitepaper describes a decentralized structure, but in reality a specific entity controls token issuance and distribution The technical development plan or business model stated in the whitepaper is false or lacks any realistic feasibility Investor returns are sourced not from genuine business revenue but from funds contributed by new investors Accordingly, without legal review at the whitepaper drafting or reference stage, projects may later face liabilities that are extremely difficult to manage or unwind. Issues That Become Critical During Investigations and Trials Investigative authorities and courts do not focus on the technical sophistication of a Bitcoin whitepaper. Instead, the following issues are central: Substance of fund flows: whether investor funds were used as described in the whitepaper, or diverted to pay returns to earlier investors Identification of responsible parties: who actually planned and operated the business, and whether the individual was merely an investor or a de facto operator Existence of return guarantees: whether principal protection or fixed returns were promised, and whether there was any actual capacity to honor such promises Simply asserting that a project “referred to the Bitcoin whitepaper” does not constitute a viable defense. The initial design of the structure and the manner in which it was presented to investors directly translate into legal responsibility. Beginning a response only at the investigation or trial stage is often already too late. In crypto-related fraud cases, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply. Where the amount obtained through deception exceeds KRW 5 billion, punishment may include life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than five years. Where unauthorized fund-raising or multi-level marketing structures are combined with such conduct, enhanced penalties under multiple statutes may apply (see Suwon District Court Decision, Sept. 23, 2022, Case No. 2022No1558). For this reason, legal review by qualified professionals is essential from the business-structure design stage. Why Legal Interpretation of the Bitcoin Whitepaper Is Essential Ultimately, how a Bitcoin whitepaper should be interpreted, and how far it may be reflected in an actual business model, is a quintessential legal judgment. Decent Law Firm conducts an integrated review of: the original intent of the Bitcoin whitepaper the actual business and operational structure fundraising and reward mechanisms regulatory and investigative perspectives Through this approach, we provide not merely isolated advice, but consistent legal support that spans from structural design to dispute resolution and investigation response. Issues surrounding the Bitcoin whitepaper are not matters of technical debate—they are questions of legal liability. This is precisely where the involvement of professionals with substantial experience in virtual asset cases becomes indispensable.
2026-02-02 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You’re Curious About Legal Responses to Unfair Disciplinary Actions Before the Labor Relations Commission, Read This Carefully
Unfair Discipline Is Not Something You Have to Endure The moment an employee is notified of disciplinary action, many experience shock and fear at the same time. Measures such as dismissal, suspension, salary reduction, or reprimand go far beyond ordinary personnel disadvantages and directly affect an employee’s livelihood and long-term career. As wages decrease or periods of exclusion from work grow longer, daily life can quickly become unstable. Despite this, many employees resign themselves to the situation, thinking, “It’s the company’s decision, so there’s nothing I can do.” This perception, however, is a clear misconception. Unfair disciplinary action is not an area left entirely to the employer’s discretion—it is a matter that can be fully contested under the law. In practice, many disciplinary actions are imposed without sufficient justification or in violation of required procedures. For employees who lie awake at night with a sense of injustice and anxiety, it is crucial to recognize that this is not a matter of personal misfortune to be endured alone, but a legal issue where the law can and should intervene. At the same time, this is not an issue that should be taken lightly. Missing the right time to respond can lead to consequences that are difficult to reverse. When and What You Can Challenge Through an Unfair Discipline Remedy Application An application for relief from unfair disciplinary action is not limited to dismissal cases. Under the Labor Standards Act, dismissal, leave of absence, suspension, transfer, salary reduction, and other forms of disciplinary punishment are all subject to remedy applications. A reprimand may not qualify if it causes only minimal practical disadvantage. However, if it results in concrete disadvantages such as restrictions on promotion or pay raises, it may still be challenged. The key issue is whether the disciplinary action satisfies the standards of justification required by the Labor Standards Act and relevant court precedents. One of the most critical factors is the filing deadline. An application for relief must be submitted within three months from the date the disciplinary action was imposed. However, if the disciplinary decision is modified through an internal company review or appeal process, the filing period may begin from the date the revised decision is notified. If this deadline is missed, the action cannot be challenged procedurally, no matter how unfair it may be. During the hearing and investigation process, the Labor Relations Commission focuses on three main points: Whether the grounds for discipline are supported by objective facts Whether the severity of the disciplinary measure is excessive in light of the established grounds Whether procedural fairness—such as providing an opportunity to be heard—was properly observed If even one of these elements is lacking, there is a strong basis for finding the discipline unfair. What Employees Most Often Miss When Responding Alone When employees handle these cases on their own, the most common mistake is an emotion-driven approach. Statements that emphasize a sense of injustice may elicit sympathy, but they often work against the employee in legal evaluations. Mistakes are also frequently made during the preparation of written statements or submission of evidence, such as using unnecessary expressions or submitting documents without clearly organized facts. These errors can allow the employer’s arguments to dominate the narrative logically. If the response strategy is set incorrectly at the initial stage, it becomes extremely difficult to correct later during hearings. Moreover, Labor Relations Commission proceedings move faster than many expect, and once submissions are made, they remain on record. Overlooking this reality can have a decisive impact on the outcome. Why Legal Counsel Is Important in Unfair Discipline Cases There is a substantial difference between merely listing facts and structuring those facts into legally relevant issues. Legal counsel begins by reorganizing the case to align with legal standards of review and clearly separating irrelevant arguments from core issues. Strategic argumentation tailored to Labor Relations Commission procedures often determines the result. Rather than simply appealing to a sense of unfairness, it is necessary to set realistic objectives—such as reinstatement, cancellation of disciplinary action, or recognition of back pay—and design arguments accordingly. Decent Law Firm provides comprehensive support in unfair discipline remedy cases, from initial consultation and fact organization to argument structuring and hearing representation. Given the significant impact that early strategic decisions have on the final outcome, the importance of initial consultation cannot be overstated. An application for relief from unfair disciplinary action is not merely a procedural matter—it is a legal response to protect an employee’s career and livelihood. Because outcomes can vary drastically depending on how quickly and accurately action is taken once the issue is recognized, we strongly recommend seeking at least preliminary legal advice before it is too late.
2026-01-29 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Minimizing Risks Related to Criminal Penalties, Fines, and Confiscation in Tax Evasion Cases
Transition Process Toward Criminal Exposure Most tax evasion cases begin at the stage of a tax audit. However, where a certain scale of underreporting and intentional misconduct is identified, the process commonly progresses from a tax audit to a criminal tax investigation conducted by specialized investigation units, and ultimately to a criminal referral to the prosecution. This is why matters initially expected to conclude with administrative penalties may later evolve into full criminal proceedings. In practice, many taxpayers fail to clearly distinguish between cases that may be resolved through administrative tax measures and those that carry genuine criminal exposure, resulting in missed opportunities for timely and appropriate strategic response. In particular, where deliberate concealment structures—such as false reporting, suppression of sales, or the use of nominee accounts or nominee corporations—are identified during the audit stage, criminal exposure should already be considered substantially realized. At this point, whether and how an early strategic response is made can significantly affect the likelihood of criminal prosecution, the possibility of non-prosecution, the scope of confiscation, and sentencing outcomes. Actual Criminal Penalties Applicable Upon a Finding of Tax Evasion Tax evasion constitutes a criminal offense under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Where intentional tax evasion is established, liability extends beyond administrative sanctions and results in criminal responsibility. Under the Act, general tax evasion is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to twice the amount of the evaded tax. Where the evaded tax amount exceeds KRW 300 million and represents at least 30% of the tax due, or exceeds KRW 500 million, enhanced penalties apply, including imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to three times the evaded tax. The applicable statutory framework and penalty levels vary depending on the amount of tax evaded. If the annual evaded tax amount ranges between KRW 500 million and KRW 1 billion, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes may apply, resulting in imprisonment of not less than three years and a fine of two to five times the evaded tax, imposed concurrently. If the annual evaded tax amount exceeds KRW 1 billion, the statute provides for life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than five years, together with a fine of two to five times the evaded tax. In practice, decisions regarding detention and sentencing are influenced not only by the amount of tax evaded, but also by the degree of intent, repetition or habitual conduct, and whether the evasion involved systematic or organized concealment. Treating tax evasion solely as a financial issue involving penalties or additional taxes—while overlooking criminal exposure—can result in an unexpected and substantial risk of actual imprisonment. Confiscation and Tax Surcharges: Often More Burdensome Than Criminal Sentencing In tax evasion cases, confiscation and additional tax surcharges arise independently of imprisonment and criminal fines imposed by the criminal court. Confiscation in criminal proceedings serves as a property-based sanction designed to recover economic benefits obtained through unlawful conduct, while administrative tax procedures may impose additional taxes and surcharges under the Framework Act on National Taxes and related tax statutes. Key issues in calculating confiscation include identifying the true beneficiary of the income, determining the scope of concealed income, and assessing discrepancies between nominal ownership and substantive control, particularly in cases involving nominee structures. When compounded with tax surcharges, the overall financial burden may become irrecoverable, even where the custodial sentence itself is relatively limited. In practice, confiscation and additional tax liabilities often result in more severe consequences than criminal fines alone. How Decent Law Firm Handles Tax Evasion Cases as Criminal Matters Tax evasion cases must not be addressed by separating tax procedures from criminal defense. Because statements and materials submitted during audits and investigations directly affect criminal liability, Decent Law Firm formulates defense strategies from a criminal law perspective at the earliest stage. We focus on challenging the existence of criminal intent and limiting the scope of liability, with the objective of minimizing both sentencing exposure and confiscation risk. If notice of a criminal tax investigation has already been issued, or if allegations of concealment or false reporting have arisen during a tax audit, immediate action is critical. Once the appropriate response window has passed, the risks associated with criminal penalties and confiscation in tax evasion cases may become irreversible.
2026-01-29 Naver Blog
