-
BlogsRecovery Strategies Every Blockchain Scam Victim Must Know
Why Blockchain Scams Cause Such Severe Damage Unlike conventional financial fraud, blockchain scams are rooted in the abuse of technological characteristics. Due to the inherent nature of blockchain technology, once a virtual asset transaction is completed, it is technically irreversible. This non-reversible structure makes post-incident recovery extremely difficult. When overseas exchanges or foreign wallets are involved, jurisdictional issues further complicate the situation, significantly raising the difficulty of any legal or practical response. A major problem is that many victims mistakenly perceive these cases as mere investment losses. Technical jargon such as whitepapers, smart contracts, and algorithms is often used to disguise intentional deception, causing victims to miss the critical window for effective action. In practice, early response timing plays a decisive role in determining whether meaningful recovery is possible in blockchain fraud cases. For those already experiencing anxiety and fear due to such losses, we hope this guide helps provide some clarity and direction. Common Types of Blockchain Scams (From the Victim’s Perspective) In practice, blockchain scams tend to follow recurring patterns: Fraud disguised as coin investments or private sales Schemes posing as crypto loans, staking programs, or yield products Fake exchanges, wallets, or phishing sites designed to steal login credentials or assets Signal groups, automated trading services, or guaranteed-profit schemes The critical issue is distinguishing between ordinary investment risk and losses caused by deceptive conduct. This distinction directly affects whether criminal fraud charges may be established and whether civil liability for damages can be pursued. If this assessment is incorrect, the entire response strategy may be fundamentally misguided. Immediate Actions to Take Once You Recognize the Fraud If fraud is suspected, the first step is to immediately stop any further transactions, change passwords for all related accounts, and prevent secondary damage. At the same time, evidence preservation is the highest priority. You must securely retain and back up original materials, including transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots and original files of Telegram, KakaoTalk, or email communications, website URLs and whitepapers provided by the counterparty, contracts, and transfer records. Failure at this stage can create decisive limitations in both criminal and civil proceedings later on. You may request withdrawal freezes from virtual asset service providers (exchanges), ask investigative authorities to suspend payments related to fraudulent accounts, and consider filing a report under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damage Proceeds. The earlier the response, the greater the possibility of practical measures being taken. Waiting passively only reduces the available options—active intervention is essential. How Decent Law Firm Makes a Practical Difference Blockchain scam cases cannot be resolved simply by filing a criminal complaint. They require a coordinated strategy that integrates structural analysis of the scam, clear legal issue identification, and parallel criminal and civil actions. Decent Law Firm conducts in-depth reviews of transaction flows and technical structures to precisely assess whether fraud is legally established, and prepares structured criminal complaints and legal memoranda for submission to investigative authorities. We also develop realistic, case-specific strategies involving exchanges, overseas platforms, and potential civil recovery depending on the feasibility of identifying the perpetrators. Ultimately, blockchain scams are not merely technical issues—they are problems of legal structure and accountability. If damage has already occurred, it is crucial not to proceed alone. Early, accurate legal intervention is the most effective way to define the proper course of action. In blockchain fraud cases, speed and precision make a tangible difference. We strongly encourage you to prepare and act without further delay.
2025-12-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Korea’s AI Basic Act: Key Compliance Checkpoints for AI Businesses
The public notice period for the Enforcement Decree of the “Framework Act on the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust” (hereinafter the 'AI Basic Act') concluded on December 22, 2025. With the Act set to take effect on January 22, 2026, the South Korean government has finalized the institutional framework. For AI service providers, these regulations are not merely post-launch checklists but essential specifications that must be integrated from the initial planning and design stages. 1. Labeling Obligations for Generative AI and UX Integration Transparency requirements under Article 31 of the AI Basic Act have been further refined through the Enforcement Decree. Labeling Methods: Providers must choose between a "Human-Perceptible Format" (visible text/watermarks) and a "Machine-Readable Format" (C2PA, metadata, etc.) to identify AI-generated content. Mandatory Notification: Even when adopting machine-readable formats, providers are obligated to notify users at least once via text or audio prompts. Avoidance of Double Regulation: If content (e.g., deepfakes) has already been labeled in accordance with other relevant laws, it may be exempt from redundant labeling duties under this Act. Practical Impact: This is not a simple notification task; it directly impacts UX/UI design. Legal reviews should be conducted during the design phase to avoid the prohibitive costs of post-launch modifications. 2. High-Impact AI Confirmation and Launch Risk Management The Act defines "High-Impact AI" as systems that significantly affect human life, physical safety, or fundamental rights (e.g., healthcare, transportation, recruitment, credit scoring, etc.). Confirmation Procedure: Businesses can apply to the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) to confirm whether their service qualifies as "High-Impact AI." The government must respond within 60 days (30 days + a possible 30-day extension). Business Risk: The government's response timeline is a critical variable for service launch schedules. If a service is retroactively classified as High-Impact AI, the provider may face the risk of redesigning the entire system architecture to meet enhanced safety standards. 3. Integration with the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) The Enforcement Decree reflects efforts to resolve overlapping regulations with the existing PIPA. Deemed Compliance: If a business faithfully fulfills its obligations under PIPA, it is deemed to have satisfied the safety and reliability requirements of the AI Basic Act regarding the processing of personal information. Limitations: Note that this "deemed compliance" applies only to personal data processing. Obligations regarding algorithm transparency and accountability for AI outputs must still be addressed separately under the AI Basic Act. 4. Post-Management Accountability: 5-Year Data Retention & Domestic Agents The Decree formalizes accountability measures to verify regulatory compliance. Record-Keeping: Documents including risk management plans, explanation protocols, and user protection measures must be retained for 5 years. These serve as crucial evidence during disputes or regulatory investigations. Domestic Agent Appointment: Overseas AI providers are now explicitly required to appoint a domestic agent in Korea. Domestic companies utilizing APIs from global Big Tech firms must also conduct supply-chain compliance checks. 5. Safety Obligations for Large-Scale AI Models (High-Compute AI) The Decree imposes obligations to establish risk identification and management systems for developers of large-scale AI models with cumulative training computation exceeding $10^{26}$ FLOPs. Domestic businesses providing services based on these hyper-scale models must also review the legal structure of liability and risk-sharing. Conclusion: A 1-Year Grace Period, but the Time to Prepare is Now The government intends to provide a one-year grace period following the enforcement of the Act. However, given the nature of the AI industry, reactive adjustments can lead to immense technical costs and legal exposure. Enterprises must now view "Compliance by Design" as a core element of their service, moving beyond mere technological development. We recommend a thorough diagnostic of whether your services fall under the "High-Impact" or "Generative AI" categories to ensure full readiness by the enforcement date. DECENT Law Firm provides tailored legal counsel and solutions to navigate the evolving regulatory landscape of the AI industry. If you require a detailed review or a compliance audit, please contact us.
2025-12-24 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Key Issues Companies Must Understand Regarding Wage Peak Systems
Concept and Legal Nature of the Wage Peak System A wage peak system is a scheme under which an employee’s wages are gradually reduced after reaching a certain age, in exchange for maintaining or extending employment until the mandatory retirement age. Against the backdrop of an aging workforce and policies favoring longer employment, many companies adopt wage peak systems as a means to mitigate rising labor costs. However, this system is not merely an internal HR policy. Because it entails a fundamental change to core working conditions, operating a wage peak system without proper legal review can expose a company to significant dispute risks. Not all wage reductions are justified simply by labeling them as a “wage peak system.” Whether such a system is lawful depends on how it is designed and implemented in practice. Companies are therefore advised to carefully review the points below before proceeding. Key Legal Issues in Practice In practice, the problematic issues are quite clear: Whether wage reductions based on age constitute “unreasonable discrimination” prohibited under the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Promotion of Employment of Older Persons Whether the scale of wage reduction and the period of application are excessive Whether corresponding measures—such as reductions in workload, responsibilities, or changes in job duties—have actually been implemented to offset the wage reduction Many companies focus solely on adjusting wages, while treating accompanying measures such as workload reduction, job reassignment, or reduced working hours as a mere formality—or failing to implement them altogether. In such cases, the wage peak system can become the starting point of serious disputes, regardless of its stated purpose. These issues often extend beyond labor disputes and escalate into civil claims for unpaid wage differentials, making them far from trivial. Summary of Supreme Court Standards In determining the validity of a wage peak system, the Supreme Court comprehensively considers the following factors (Supreme Court Decision dated May 26, 2022, Case No. 2017Da292343): The legitimacy of the purpose for introducing the wage peak system The extent of disadvantage suffered by the affected employees Whether measures corresponding to the wage reduction were introduced, and whether such measures are appropriate Whether the financial resources saved through the wage peak system were used for its original intended purpose If any one of these elements is lacking, the wage peak system may be deemed invalid as age-based discrimination. In practice, there have been numerous cases where companies were required to retroactively pay substantial amounts of unpaid wages despite having implemented such systems. In particular, Korean courts distinguish between “retirement-extension-type” and “retirement-maintenance-type” wage peak systems. Where wages are reduced without extending the retirement age (the retirement-maintenance type), the likelihood of invalidation is significantly higher unless a clear and reasonable justification exists. Such systems therefore require especially careful design. Ultimately, a wage peak system that merely satisfies formal requirements can result in serious financial and legal liabilities for the company. Practical Checkpoints for Companies and Decent Law Firm’s Support When operating a wage peak system, companies should comprehensively review the following points: Whether amendments to the rules of employment were properly approved in accordance with Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act, including obtaining consent from a labor union representing a majority of employees Whether individual consent from affected employees is required Whether substantive and practical measures corresponding to wage reductions have been established and are actually being implemented Even if a wage peak system is already in place, it is necessary to reassess whether the current operation complies with judicial standards. Responding after a dispute has arisen inevitably involves higher costs and risks. Accordingly, conducting legal review at the system design stage or during operational audits is the most practical way to protect the company. Decent Law Firm provides practical legal support tailored to each company’s organizational structure and HR framework, drawing on extensive advisory and dispute resolution experience with wage peak systems, led by attorneys with prior labor law and HR expertise. If your company is already involved in this issue or requires proactive risk management, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice—even on a preliminary basis.
2025-12-23 Naver Blog -
Blogs
If You Were Involved in a Crypto Trading Scam, These Are the Criminal Risks You Must Check
1. A crypto trading scam — could you be criminally liable? If you participated in a virtual asset transaction in any capacity—such as acting as an intermediary, recommending an investment, providing an account, or transferring funds—criminal liability may arise depending on whether you recognized or could have recognized that the conduct constituted fraud. However, where the individual was not the principal planner of the scheme, there are cases in which the person is deemed not a joint principal offender, but rather an accessory, or even acquitted. The outcome depends heavily on how the facts are established and proven. In crypto-related fraud cases, investigative authorities focus on the circumstances of involvement, foreseeability or awareness of the fraudulent nature, and the substantive role played. How these issues are addressed at an early stage can significantly affect the severity of punishment. 2. Common types of crypto trading scams that trigger criminal investigations Crypto trading scams tend to follow recurring patterns. Law enforcement typically assesses involvement and scope of liability based on the following categories: Promoting or introducing an “investment coin” followed by failure to pay promised returns Soliciting crypto investments through multi-level marketing structures or “signal/leader chat rooms” Performing so-called “minor roles,” such as account lending, transferring proceeds, or cash withdrawals Involvement in transactions related to overseas exchanges or unlisted tokens Falling within one of these categories may lead to an investigation. Nevertheless, criminal responsibility is determined through a holistic assessment of awareness, manner of involvement, and the actual substance of the role performed. 3. Potential charges and exposure to punishment Crypto trading fraud cases rarely involve a single offense. Depending on the form and degree of involvement, multiple charges may apply simultaneously, and sentencing exposure can vary widely. Fraud Where a person deceives others under the guise of a virtual asset investment and obtains property, fraud may be established. Fraud is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million under Article 347(1) of the Korean Criminal Act. Joint principal offender or accessory Even without planning the overall scheme, a participant may be punished as a joint principal offender or as an accessory, depending on their role. Where two or more persons jointly commit a crime, each is punished as a principal offender (Article 30). A person who aids another’s crime is punished as an accessory, with a mitigated sentence compared to that of the principal offender (Article 32). Illegal fund-raising (Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission) Receiving funds by promising repayment of the principal or an amount exceeding it in the future constitutes prohibited fund-raising activity. Violations are punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. Concealment of criminal proceeds Disguising, concealing, or handling proceeds derived from serious crimes such as fraud may constitute a violation of the Act on the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds and Punishment Thereof, punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. Statements made at the initial investigation stage often become critical evidence at trial. Careless statements can significantly weaken a defense. That said, even unfavorable initial statements may be countered through fact-specific analysis and evidentiary strategy. A crypto trading scam case is not a mere civil dispute—it may directly result in a criminal record. Even seemingly minor involvement warrants professional legal handling. 4. Our approach — early-stage response is decisive In crypto trading scam cases, our firm focuses on early and strategic intervention, including: Charge-reduction strategies based on the degree of involvement Structuring arguments for minor participants and lack of fraudulent intent Denial of joint-offender status or limitation to accessory liability Review of settlement possibilities and preparation of mitigation materials for sentencing If you have already been contacted by law enforcement, requested to appear for questioning, or have a history of account use or fund transfers, immediate legal review is critical. Attempting to respond alone often worsens the situation. Correcting the course early with experienced counsel is the most realistic solution. We recommend starting with a brief consultation before matters escalate further.
2025-12-23 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Essential Reading for Victims of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams
Typical Types of Cryptocurrency Loan Scams Recently, cryptocurrency loan scams have become increasingly sophisticated, carefully disguised to appear like legitimate financial transactions. At first glance, they may look no different from lawful crypto-backed loan services. Common methods include the following: Luring investors with promises of high returns and low-interest crypto-backed loans Explaining a structure where a loan is executed after depositing USDT, while in reality no loan is ever provided Demanding advance payments under the guise of loan fees or security deposits Using fake loan websites that impersonate well-known exchanges or platforms The key point is that although these schemes take the form of a “loan,” their substance is to deceive victims into transferring cryptocurrency to a specific wallet and then misappropriate it. Missing this fundamental nature can completely derail the direction of any legal response. Key Legal Issues at Stake The most important legal criterion in cryptocurrency loan scams is whether fraud under Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act is established. Even if the transaction is labeled as a loan, fraud is constituted if the perpetrator deceives the victim and thereby obtains property or a financial benefit. Investigative authorities and courts typically examine the following elements when determining whether fraud has occurred: Whether there was a deceptive act toward the victim Whether the victim was induced into a mistake due to that deception Whether there was a disposition by the victim based on that mistake (i.e., transfer of cryptocurrency) Whether the perpetrator acquired property or a financial benefit Whether there is a causal relationship between the deceptive act and the victim’s financial loss If there are multiple victims or repeated offenses, enhanced punishment may apply, such as habitual fraud under Article 351 of the Criminal Act or aggravated penalties under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes. If a criminal organization was formed or joined, additional liability may arise under Article 114 of the Criminal Act. What matters is not the form, but the actual structure of the scheme. Only by proving this process can a victim move beyond the status of a “cryptocurrency scam victim.” Risk Factors Commonly Overlooked by Victims One of the most common misconceptions among victims is the belief that “because it is structured as a loan, it is different from an investment scam.” However, even if the scheme outwardly takes the form of a loan, fraud is established if, from the outset, the perpetrator had no intention or ability to provide a loan and instead deceived the victim to misappropriate cryptocurrency. This is not merely a civil breach of contract, but a criminal offense subject to punishment. Victims often give up on taking action for reasons such as: Assuming recovery is impossible because overseas platforms or wallets are involved Missing the appropriate time to report due to delays The problem is that the longer reporting is delayed, the more difficult it becomes to trace cryptocurrency wallets, freeze scam-related accounts, track criminal proceeds, and identify those involved. A misjudgment at this stage can effectively eliminate any realistic chance of recovery. Decent Law Firm’s Approach and Direction of Assistance Decent Law Firm does not treat cryptocurrency loan scams as simple criminal complaints. The core issue lies in the underlying fraud structure. Our approach includes: Analyzing the flow of cryptocurrency and the structure of the scam Developing a strategic approach at the criminal complaint stage Conducting a realistic assessment of the possibility of tracing and recovering virtual assets Determining whether to pursue civil proceedings in parallel, if necessary Cryptocurrency-related cases require a fundamentally different approach from ordinary fraud cases. The later the response, the more sharply the chances of recovery decline. If you are trapped in repeated anxiety and uncertainty over this issue, there is no need to lose time making decisions on your own. At the same time, you must clearly recognize that taking this matter lightly can lead to irreversible consequences. Because cryptocurrency loan scams are cases in which early action directly determines the outcome, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice at the earliest possible stage.
2025-12-22 Naver Blog -
Blogs
How to File an Unfair Dismissal Remedy Application – Methods and Procedures
Concept and Criteria of Unfair Dismissal In an employment relationship, dismissal is a serious measure that directly affects an employee’s livelihood. For this reason, the law strictly limits an employer’s authority to dismiss employees. Under Article 23(1) of the Korean Labor Standards Act, an employer is prohibited from dismissing, suspending, disciplining, transferring, or reducing the wages of an employee without justifiable cause. Such actions are collectively referred to as “unfair dismissal or unfair disciplinary measures.” When an employee is unfairly dismissed, the law provides a fast and simplified administrative remedy through the Labor Relations Commission, separate from civil litigation. The core of this system lies in understanding the proper method for filing an unfair dismissal remedy application. For employees who have just received notice of dismissal and are overwhelmed by uncertainty and anxiety, this procedure may serve as the minimum legal safeguard to protect their rights. Understanding the Overall Procedure for Filing an Unfair Dismissal Remedy Application To challenge an unfair dismissal, it is essential to clearly understand the procedural framework. An employee must file an application for remedy with the competent Local Labor Relations Commission within three months from the date the dismissal occurred. This deadline is strictly enforced, and even a one-day delay makes recovery impossible. The application is filed by submitting a prescribed application form to the Local Labor Relations Commission. Upon receipt, the Commission promptly conducts a fact-finding investigation and holds a hearing where both the employer and the employee are required to appear. During this process, evidence submission, witness examination, and cross-examination may take place, and in some cases, a recommendation for settlement may be offered. Once the hearing is concluded, the Commission renders a decision on whether the dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal. If unfair dismissal is recognized, the Commission may order reinstatement to the original position or monetary compensation. If not, the application will be dismissed. If either party disagrees with the decision, an appeal may be filed with the Central Labor Relations Commission within 10 days. The decision of the Central Commission may further be challenged through administrative litigation. This sequence represents the standard practical flow of an unfair dismissal remedy application. Key Issues to Consider During the Remedy Process The most common and critical issue in remedy proceedings is the filing deadline. If the three-month statutory period lapses, the application will be dismissed regardless of the merits of the case. This is not a matter to be taken lightly, as delayed action effectively results in a forfeiture of rights. Another preliminary issue is whether the Labor Standards Act applies to the workplace. If the employer has fewer than five regular employees, the unfair dismissal remedy system may not apply, making prior legal review essential. The existence of a legitimate interest in seeking relief is also significant. Even if a fixed-term employment contract has expired, an application may still be meaningful if there is a practical interest in recovering wages equivalent to the dismissal period. In addition, when calculating wages for the period of unfair dismissal, potential wage increases under employment rules or collective bargaining agreements must also be considered. If reinstatement is not desired, the employee may opt for monetary compensation instead. This decision should be made strategically at an early stage of the procedure. As such, filing an unfair dismissal remedy application is not a mere formality. It requires an accurate understanding of issue-specific legal frameworks, making the initial process critically important. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist Unfair dismissal cases are not simple labor disputes. They require a sophisticated approach that combines thorough fact-finding with precise legal analysis. Without proper preparation, employees may face unfavorable outcomes despite having legitimate claims. Decent Law Firm provides structured and strategic support by analyzing the legitimacy of the dismissal grounds, procedural violations, and wage calculation frameworks to develop case-specific response strategies. Accurately designing the unfair dismissal remedy application at the initial stage often determines the final outcome. Decent’s role is to provide practical assistance to clients facing dismissal alone and to clearly hold employers legally accountable for unilateral and unjust measures. Dismissal disputes are never trivial. Missing the right timing can lead to irreversible consequences. For this reason, we strongly recommend consulting with a former labor official-turned-attorney at the earliest stage.
2025-12-19 Naver Blog
