-
BlogsHow 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 -
Blogs
If You Want to Avoid a Detention Warrant for Voice Phishing, Read This Carefully
What Must Be Checked at the Stage When a Detention Warrant for Voice Phishing Is Requested Once a detention warrant related to voice phishing is requested, the court schedules a pre-detention hearing (warrant review hearing) within a very short period of time. In most cases, the hearing is held as early as the day following the warrant request. All defense arguments must be fully organized within this extremely limited timeframe. At this stage, the most critical step is to accurately confirm that a detention warrant has been requested and to immediately review the detention warrant application, the criminal complaint, and the suspect’s interrogation records through legal counsel. Attempting to respond without understanding which charges the prosecutor is relying on to justify detention is, in effect, no different from facing the process completely unprepared. Key Issues to Contest at the Pre-Detention Hearing 1) Probable Cause of the Crime There must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused committed the crime. If the individual’s role within a voice phishing organization is unclear, or if the involvement was limited to a minor or peripheral role, it may be argued that the alleged criminal conduct has not been sufficiently substantiated by objective evidence. 2) Grounds for Detention Detention may be justified only if one of the following applies: The suspect does not have a fixed residence There is a risk of destruction of evidence There is a risk of flight or attempted flight 3) Mandatory Considerations The court must also consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the risk of reoffending, and the potential threat to victims or key witnesses. However, not all participants are situated in the same position. Factors such as acting merely as a courier, temporary involvement, or a lack of full awareness of the criminal scheme are critical elements that weaken the necessity for detention. Is It Over Once a Detention Warrant Is Issued? Even if a detention warrant for a voice phishing case has already been issued, it does not mean that all options are exhausted. Through a detention review (habeas-type review), it is still possible to challenge the necessity and proportionality of the detention. In parallel, strategic efforts must continue during the detention period to seek a non-indictment or the most favorable possible outcome. In addition, attempts to recover 피해, reach settlements, deposit funds with the court, and submit mitigating materials can have a direct impact on later trial proceedings and sentencing. At this stage, every decision and every written submission can significantly influence prosecutorial decisions and future sentencing outcomes. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Cases involving detention warrants for voice phishing are not simple criminal matters. They are complex cases that require a comprehensive review of organized crime elements, conspiracy liability, and potential violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Attempting to respond alone, without a precise understanding of how investigators approach these cases and how courts assess detention requests, is effectively the same as proceeding on the assumption that detention is inevitable. Decent Law Firm has consistently handled voice phishing cases with a unified strategy, from the detention stage and warrant hearings through post-detention procedures. Analyzing the structure of the case and building arguments that can genuinely persuade the court—this is what Decent Law Firm does best. Many clients have already placed their trust in us throughout this process and achieved meaningful results. Before it is too late, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice.
2025-12-18 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Criminal Liability and Defense Strategies for Workplace Sexual Harassment
Legal Standards and Assessment Factors for Criminal Penalties in Workplace Sexual Harassment Workplace sexual harassment is clearly defined under the Act on Equal Employment Opportunity and Work–Family Balance Assistance. It refers to sexual remarks or conduct that exploit one’s position or work-related authority to cause sexual humiliation or offense to another person, or any disadvantage imposed on an individual for refusing to comply with such conduct. The key issue is that not all cases are resolved through internal disciplinary measures. Depending on the severity and nature of the conduct, the level of criminal penalties for workplace sexual harassment may extend beyond administrative sanctions and result in criminal liability. There are many cases in which conduct perceived by the offender as “mere remarks” has been evaluated very differently by investigative authorities and courts. For this reason, it is critical to identify and secure evidence favorable to your position at an early stage. Scope of Criminal Penalties When the Case Escalates to Criminal Charges When workplace sexual harassment exceeds a certain threshold, it may be classified as a criminal offense under the Criminal Act or the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes. First, indecent acts involving assault or intimidation may constitute forcible molestation, punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 15 million. In practice, there are numerous court decisions finding supervisors guilty for repeated physical contact or unwanted physical conduct accompanied by verbal remarks. In addition, indecent acts committed by abusing authority or influence arising from one’s occupational position may be punished under Article 10 of the Sexual Crimes Punishment Act, with penalties of up to 3 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 15 million. Depending on the content and manner of sexual remarks, related charges such as defamation or insult may also arise. Accordingly, criminal penalties for workplace sexual harassment are not limited to fines. They may include serious ancillary consequences such as sex offender registration and mandatory completion of sexual violence treatment programs. These cases should never be taken lightly. Sentencing Factors Considered During Investigation and Trial Courts consider multiple factors comprehensively when determining sentencing in criminal cases involving workplace sexual harassment. Aggravating Factors Abuse of workplace authority or position, indicating a high degree of culpability Significant sexual discomfort and psychological harm suffered by the victim Secondary harm, such as the victim resigning from employment Failure to obtain forgiveness or settlement with the victim Mitigating Factors Admission of the offense and genuine remorse Settlement with the victim and the victim’s expressed intent not to seek punishment No prior criminal record Relatively minor degree of physical or verbal misconduct Ultimately, the level of criminal penalties for workplace sexual harassment can vary significantly depending on early-stage 대응 and legal strategy. Errors in judgment at this stage may result in irreversible consequences. Legal Support and Defense Strategy by Decent Law Firm For individuals facing anxiety and uncertainty due to allegations of workplace sexual harassment, accurate legal 대응 is a critical starting point to regain control of the situation. Decent Law Firm provides structured, step-by-step legal assistance, including fact-finding analysis, evidence organization, 대응 to internal investigations and disciplinary procedures, and defense in criminal proceedings. In cases where workplace sexual harassment may escalate into criminal liability, effective defense strategies—such as early-stage interview and statement planning, identification of mitigating sentencing factors, and assessment of settlement possibilities—are essential. Inaction or complacent judgment can lead to severe outcomes, including criminal punishment and irreparable career damage. This risk should not be underestimated. Workplace sexual harassment cases directly affect an individual’s reputation and livelihood. If such a situation arises, do not make decisions alone. Seek the assistance of experienced legal professionals to respond calmly, strategically, and effectively.
2025-12-17 Naver Blog -
Blogs HOT
Crypto Referral Controversy: How Korea’s Financial Authorities Define Unregistered Business Activities
1. Key Points from the Financial Services Commission (FSC) [Promotion and Intermediation of Unregistered Virtual Asset Service Providers Also Subject to Regulation] Under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “AML Act”), only 27 virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are currently registered with Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). In a recent press release, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) announced that promotional, intermediary, or brokerage activities conducted on behalf of unregistered virtual asset service providers may also constitute illegal conduct and will be subject to strict enforcement. The FSC identified the following activities as key areas of concern: Marketing or soliciting Korean residents on behalf of unregistered VASPs (including overseas exchanges) Introducing, brokering, or intermediating unregistered VASPs (e.g., referral programs) Promoting services or inducing sign-ups through Telegram channels, open chat rooms, or similar platforms In other words, activities that go beyond merely sharing a link and instead form a structure that can be evaluated as “business conduct” may fall within the scope of regulatory sanctions. 2. Crypto Referrals: Simple Promotion or Brokerage Activity? Many operators assume that crypto referral activities are lawful simply because they do not directly operate an exchange. However, the legal interpretation may differ. Under the AML Act, any entity that conducts brokerage or intermediation of virtual asset trading as a business is required to register as a virtual asset service provider. While there is not yet a Supreme Court decision directly addressing crypto referral structures, guidance can be drawn from court precedents involving structurally similar FX margin trading arrangements. 3. Judicial Perspective: Comparable Court Precedents In prior cases, Korean courts have held that providing account-opening links to overseas trading platforms and receiving commissions proportional to customers’ trading volumes—approximately 25% in certain cases—constituted regulated brokerage activity under the Capital Markets Act rather than mere marketing. By analogy, crypto referral schemes that repeatedly induce user sign-ups through referral links and receive ongoing revenue shares based on transaction fees may be at risk of being classified as “unregistered virtual asset brokerage.” 4. Not All Referral Structures Are Illegal Key Criteria for Assessing Illegality Crypto referral activities are not automatically unlawful. Regulatory risk varies significantly depending on how the structure is designed and operated. Structures with Lower Legal Risk Providing general information or promotional content without receiving commissions Registering referral codes for users who were already using the exchange Offering non-targeted, general introductions to the public Structures with Higher Legal Risk Promising high returns or offering automated trading programs conditional upon exchange sign-up Actively distributing referral links while repeatedly receiving transaction-based commissions 5. Why Advance Legal Review Is Essential Regulation of crypto referral models remains an evolving area. As a result, the boundary between lawful and unlawful conduct can shift substantially depending on the underlying business structure. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team continuously monitors regulatory guidance from authorities, investigative trends, and emerging court decisions. Based on verified enforcement cases, the team provides multi-layered legal risk analysis of referral, promotional, and intermediary business models. Addressing issues only after regulatory scrutiny begins is fundamentally different from proactively reviewing and adjusting a business structure in advance—and the outcomes can differ dramatically. 6. Navigating Crypto Regulation with Decent’s Virtual Asset Practice Team Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team provides hands-on advisory services across the full spectrum of crypto regulation, including issues involving unregistered VASP operations, referral programs, and the legal compliance of trading signal groups. For businesses currently operating referral-based models—or planning to do so—conducting a proper legal review now is the most practical and effective course of action. Decent delivers clear operational guidelines for sustainable business management and supports rapid response through dedicated communication channels with experienced attorneys when issues arise. Decent Law Firm—Where the Answers to Regulatory Uncertainty Are Found. Partner with Decent to proactively navigate the evolving crypto regulatory landscape.
2025-12-17 Naver Blog -
Media Coverage
Decent Law Firm Warns: “Even ‘Simple’ Promotion and Referral Activities in Crypto Can Cross Legal Boundaries”
As the virtual asset market continues its integration into Korea’s formal regulatory framework, business models operating outside centralized exchanges—such as referral platforms, trading signal groups, and subscription-based chart analysis services—are increasingly affected by evolving regulatory scrutiny. Structures that were once widely perceived as mere promotional or content-based activities are now facing closer examination under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “AML Act”) and the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, particularly where they may be interpreted as constituting “business activities.” Recently, Korean financial authorities have emphasized that regulatory risk does not arise solely from the provision of referral links themselves. Instead, greater attention is being paid to how users are induced to trade, how revenues are generated, and whether elements such as commercial intent, repetitiveness, and compensation are combined in a manner that may amount to brokerage, intermediation, or other regulated business conduct. As a result, industry participants increasingly recognize that regulatory assessments hinge less on a service’s name or outward appearance and more on its actual operational structure, fund flows, and contractual arrangements. That said, not all referral-based structures or activities related to overseas virtual asset exchanges automatically qualify as “virtual asset service providers” subject to reporting obligations under the AML Act. Whether an entity falls within the scope of a regulated virtual asset service provider depends on a comprehensive assessment of its business model, transaction methods, and the degree of commerciality, compensation, and continuity involved. Consequently, both reporting obligations and potential violations may vary significantly by structure. In particular, referral-based crypto businesses remain an area where judicial precedent has yet to be clearly established. In practice, the prevailing view is that regulatory risk ultimately depends on how customers are attracted, how compensation is structured, and whether the overall operation can be characterized as continuous business activity. Against this regulatory backdrop, Decent Law Firm has strengthened its structural advisory services for referral- and content-based crypto platform operators through its dedicated Virtual Asset Practice Team. Rather than focusing solely on categorical determinations of legality, Decent adopts a substance-over-form approach—analyzing regulatory exposure based on the actual operation of the business and providing integrated advice on corporate structuring, contractual frameworks, and tax arrangements to manage risk proactively. In many referral-based businesses, revenues and commissions are often fragmented across individual operators or partner entities, leading to accumulated tax exposure. In addition, disputes frequently arise when incentives already paid cannot be recovered following refunds or chargebacks. Where terms of service, partner agreements, and settlement rules are inadequately structured, customer complaints or internal disputes may escalate into external audits or tax investigations. Decent addresses these structural vulnerabilities by diagnosing risks at an early stage and advising on the establishment of centralized corporate operating systems and internal control frameworks. Managing Partner Attorney Jin Hyeonsu of Decent Law Firm commented, “The core issue in crypto referral businesses is not the referral format itself, but how the business is actually operated. If fund flows, contractual structures, or content operations are misaligned, tax, administrative, and even criminal risks can arise simultaneously. Post hoc explanations have clear limitations—designing a business structure from the outset with regulatory standards in mind is critical.” Managing Partner Attorney Hong Pureun added, “Because referral-based crypto businesses remain an area without well-established judicial precedent, uniform conclusions of illegality are inappropriate. What is required instead is a structure-specific and type-specific analysis. Decent combines its virtual asset legal expertise with crypto-focused tax capabilities to deliver tailored legal opinions and structural advisory services suited to each client’s operational reality.” As virtual asset regulations become increasingly detailed, many in the industry observe that it is no longer feasible to continue operating under legacy, informal structures. As regulatory standards are formalized, internal structures—rather than external branding—are becoming both a source of risk and a key competitive differentiator. Decent Law Firm continues to expand the role of its Virtual Asset Practice Team, leveraging accumulated advisory experience in regulatory “borderline” areas such as referrals, trading signal groups, and crypto platforms. Through this expertise, Decent aims to serve as a legal partner that provides clear, predictable operational standards for businesses navigating regulatory uncertainty. The firm notes that “for companies currently operating or considering launching virtual asset–based businesses, now is the critical time to comprehensively review their structures and manage risk through professional legal and tax advisory services.”
2025-12-17 E동아(EDongA) -
Blogs
How to Respond When Involved in an OTC Crypto Fraud Case
1. Understanding OTC Transactions and Their Structure OTC (Over-The-Counter) trading refers to off-exchange transactions conducted directly between individuals or through intermediaries, without using a centralized exchange. In the virtual asset market, OTC trades are commonly used for large-volume transactions, lower fees, and private settlements. The risk is that this structure can be exploited for crimes such as voice-phishing-related money laundering and fraud. “OTC crypto fraud” often occurs when criminals disguise illicit fund flows as legitimate trades and pull ordinary participants into the transaction chain. A simple claim of “I didn’t know” is no longer enough. In OTC-related investigations, authorities focus on what you knew at the time, whether you fulfilled your duty of care, and whether you could have recognized suspicious circumstances. If your explanation is inconsistent or you respond poorly at the early stage, even a transaction you believed to be lawful can escalate into criminal exposure. This is not a matter that ends as a misunderstanding. A wrong first step can lead to real punishment. 2. Potential Criminal Liability in OTC Crypto Fraud Cases 1) Elements of Fraud Under Korean Criminal Law For fraud to be established under the Korean Criminal Act, the prosecution generally must prove all of the following: Deceptive act The victim’s mistake Transfer of property Intent to unlawfully obtain property Mere participation in a transaction is not enough. The key issue is whether criminal awareness and intent can be established. 2) Possible Sentencing Ranges For general fraud, Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act provides for up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. If the amount of unlawful gain is large, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply, significantly increasing sentencing exposure: KRW 50 billion or more: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years KRW 5 billion or more and less than KRW 50 billion: imprisonment for not less than 3 years A fine may also be imposed in addition to imprisonment, up to the amount of unlawful gain If the OTC transaction is linked to voice phishing or other telecommunications-based financial fraud, additional liability may arise under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages. 3. Key Defense Strategies at the Investigation Stage Once a suspicious transaction is identified, all further transactions must be halted immediately. Preserving evidence is critical, including: Transaction records Wallet transfer histories Messaging and chat logs Any materials related to the counterparty’s identity During questioning by investigative authorities, it is essential to consistently explain: That the OTC transaction itself followed lawful trading practices That there was no awareness that the funds were illicit That there was no conspiracy or even conditional intent to participate in criminal activity Recent case outcomes indicate that mere involvement in off-exchange trading does not automatically prove criminal intent. However, this tends to apply only where the post-incident explanation is structured, evidence-backed, and legally coherent. Where a person fails to substantiate lack of intent, criminal disposition can follow (Suwon High Court, Sept. 17, 2025, Case No. 2025No635). 4. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to OTC Crypto Fraud Defense OTC crypto fraud cases are highly sensitive to early-stage decision-making. Decent Law Firm supports clients from the outset by analyzing the transaction structure, mapping fund flows, and separating objective facts from assumptions about awareness. We develop a defense framework by: Organizing a consistent statement strategy Selecting and arranging objective supporting materials Conducting precedent-based legal analysis to prevent unfounded allegations of conspiracy or intent Even if your transaction was legitimate, it is possible to be mischaracterized as a participant in criminal activity. In such situations, professional legal representation is not optional—it is essential. Decent Law Firm provides clear standards for evaluating risk and a structured, case-specific legal process for clients considering consultation regarding alleged involvement in OTC crypto fraud schemes.
2025-12-16 Naver Blog
