-
Blogs CryptoIf you are suffering as a victim of cryptocurrency fraud involving wallets or related regulatory legislation, this is essential reading.
Cryptocurrency Fraud – Why Is It Increasing So Rapidly? The primary reasons for the recent surge in cryptocurrency fraud are information asymmetry and the complexity of its structure. Project structures, token issuance mechanisms, and profit models are often designed in ways that are difficult for ordinary investors to fully understand. This environment creates fertile ground for fraudulent schemes to appear as legitimate investment opportunities. Common types of cryptocurrency fraud include: Inducing investment by promising high returns Multi-level or referral-based structures resembling pyramid schemes Providing false listing information Guaranteeing profits through automated trading programs Such conduct may constitute fraud under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act or violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. Because technical explanations and whitepapers often exist on the surface, it is not easy to detect suspicion in the early stages. In particular, schemes that build trust by paying initial returns to early investors make it extremely difficult for victims themselves to recognize warning signs. As a result, cryptocurrency fraud often continues for a significant period before it is finally exposed. Cryptocurrency Fraud Damage – What Legal Issues Arise? The most critical legal issue in cryptocurrency fraud cases is distinguishing between a mere investment failure and a criminal act of fraud. Whether fraud is established must be assessed based on the circumstances at the time the investment was solicited. If, at the time of solicitation, the promoter had both the intent and ability to repay, a subsequent refusal to repay may constitute only a civil breach of contract rather than criminal fraud. However, if criminal liability is established, the following laws may apply: Fraud (Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission (Articles 3 and 6(1)) Aggravated Fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(1)) From a civil perspective, key issues include: Claims for damages based on tort Claims for return of unjust enrichment In this process, identifying the perpetrator and tracing the flow of funds are decisive factors in determining the outcome of the case. In cryptocurrency fraud cases, securing digital evidence is essential. This includes: Cryptocurrency wallet addresses Exchange transaction records Platform logs Chat records Investment solicitation materials Since the subjective element of fraud (intent to defraud) must be inferred from objective circumstances—such as the defendant’s financial status, surrounding conditions, the content of the transaction, and the performance process—unless the defendant confesses, failure to secure such evidence at an early stage may make later proof extremely difficult. Essential Response Steps If You Have Been Defrauded If you realize that you have fallen victim to cryptocurrency fraud, the first step is to immediately stop any additional transfers and cease attempts to negotiate under the perpetrator’s persuasion. This does not mean that settlement for recovery is prohibited. However, even during settlement discussions, it is critical to secure evidence and obtain assistance from a legal professional. Another essential step is organizing evidence. You should systematically compile: Chat records Deposit and withdrawal records Promotional materials Contract-like documents Afterward, you must carefully determine the timing and method of filing a criminal complaint or reporting to investigative authorities. If a complaint is filed prematurely without sufficient evidence, it may negatively affect the investigation. Therefore, it is generally more effective to organize evidence thoroughly with professional legal assistance before initiating criminal proceedings. When victims attempt to handle the matter alone, the core nature of the case is often reduced to a simple dispute, or time is wasted without properly identifying the perpetrator. In cryptocurrency fraud cases, initial strategic direction and speed are crucial. This point cannot be emphasized enough.
2026-02-10 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
How Should the Bithumb Bitcoin Erroneous Transfer Incident Be Viewed Legally?
Overview of the Incident A single input error resulted in an erroneous transfer worth approximately KRW 60 trillion. On February 6, 2026, an unprecedented incident occurred at Bithumb. Instead of distributing a promotional reward of KRW 2,000, a staff member mistakenly entered the unit incorrectly and transferred 2,000 Bitcoin. As a result, approximately KRW 196 billion per recipient was credited, and some of the Bitcoin was immediately sold on the market, causing a temporary sharp decline in prices. Although the incident originated from a system error, its impact extended far beyond an internal operational mistake and affected the broader market. Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in the Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer incident lies in distinguishing criminal liability from civil liability. Many initially consider whether embezzlement charges could apply. However, according to the Supreme Court decision dated December 16, 2021 (2020Do9789), virtual assets are not considered “property” under the Criminal Act but rather “property-based interests.” The Court held that even if a person who receives mistakenly transferred virtual assets uses or disposes of them at their own discretion, it is difficult to conclude that such a person occupies a position of managing another’s affairs based on a fiduciary relationship. Accordingly, the offense of breach of trust does not apply. Therefore, merely receiving and using or disposing of virtual assets transferred by mistake does not easily lead to criminal punishment such as embezzlement or breach of trust under the current criminal law framework. However, the legal analysis does not end there. Assets acquired through the erroneous Bitcoin transfer constitute gains obtained without legal cause, and thus may be evaluated as unjust enrichment under the Civil Act. In such cases, the recipient bears an obligation to return the unjust enrichment regardless of intent or negligence. Even if part of the assets has already been disposed of, a recipient acting in bad faith must return the received benefits with interest and compensate for any resulting damages (Article 748(2) of the Civil Act). Since the obligation to return unjust enrichment does not have a fixed due date, the recipient becomes liable for delay damages from the time a demand for return is made (Article 387(2) of the Civil Act). Attorney’s Opinion “Although this incident originated from a system error, it will ultimately be resolved through restoration. Bithumb has sufficient recovery capabilities, and full recovery is legally possible. If any recipients are currently in discussions with Bithumb after receiving the erroneously transferred assets, returning them would be the prudent course of action to avoid unnecessary legal disputes. At this point, a rational resolution is necessary to preserve the integrity of the market.” Conclusion The outcome of this incident ultimately depends on the legal perspective applied. Decent Law Firm provides comprehensive legal analysis for recipients and related parties involved in large-scale virtual asset incidents such as the Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer, including civil return procedures, negotiation processes, and dispute response strategies. By analyzing legal risks associated with different return methods, structuring negotiations with counterparties, and proposing response strategies to minimize additional damages, we aim to prevent disputes from escalating into prolonged litigation and to facilitate rational resolutions between the parties. The Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer incident demonstrates how a technical mistake can quickly evolve into a serious legal issue. Only calm legal judgment and swift, well-informed responses can restore trust in the market. If you are a party with interests at stake in connection with the Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer, a rational decision based on legal standards—rather than emotional judgment—is essential.
2026-02-09 Naver Blog -
Blogs Labor · Employment Disputes
If You Need Help Reporting Unpaid Compensation as a Freelancer and Seeking Assistance from the Labor Office, Read This Carefully
Why Is Unpaid Compensation So Common for Freelancers? One of the most frequent problems freelancers face is the non-payment of service fees or compensation. Phrases such as “Let’s settle everything next month,” “The client hasn’t paid us yet,” or “The performance is unclear, so it’s hard to finalize the amount” come up repeatedly. Payment responsibility is often postponed on the grounds that the individual is “not an employee,” or work proceeds without a clearly defined payment structure from the outset. The absence of employment insurance or coverage under the four major social insurance schemes, combined with an environment where it feels difficult to raise issues about non-payment, makes freelancers even more vulnerable. At this stage, however, one point must be clearly understood. The root of the problem is not the freelancer’s status itself, but contracts and compensation structures that were disadvantageously designed from the beginning. Being a Freelancer Does Not Mean “Wages” Are Never Protected Many freelancers facing unpaid compensation conclude, “I’m not an employee, so I’m not protected.” However, legal determinations are not based on the title of the contract, but on the actual nature of the work relationship. Courts consider factors such as whether the user determined the content of the work and exercised substantial direction and supervision during its performance, whether working hours and locations were designated and binding, and whether the individual could independently operate a business—for example, by owning equipment or hiring third parties to perform the work. They also assess whether the compensation constitutes payment for the labor itself, whether a base or fixed salary was set, and whether there was continuity in the work relationship and exclusivity toward the user. When these elements are recognized, there are many cases where, despite a “freelancer” contract, worker status is acknowledged and the issue of unpaid service fees is treated as unpaid wages under the Labor Standards Act. Even if worker status is ultimately denied, that does not mean there is no way to respond. Claims can still be pursued as civil claims for unpaid service fees or compensation. The most dangerous decision is to prematurely rule out these possibilities on your own. Why Handling the Issue Alone Often Makes Things Worse for Freelancers When payment is withheld, emotions can easily take over. However, a single hastily sent message can put the entire response to unpaid freelancer compensation at a disadvantage. Such messages are often used to justify non-payment or are exploited as evidence to evade responsibility. Outcomes vary significantly depending on whether a payment date was specified, how performance-based clauses are interpreted, and what legal meaning is attributed to verbal agreements or messenger conversations. If handled incorrectly, freelancers may be directly exposed to arguments such as “the compensation was never agreed upon,” “performance was insufficient,” or “there is no obligation to pay due to contract termination.” This is not an issue an individual should be expected to endure alone. Without reassessing the underlying structure, unpaid compensation issues for freelancers tend to become prolonged. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to Handling Unpaid Compensation for Freelancers Decent Law Firm does not view unpaid freelancer compensation as a simple matter of payment demands. From the initial stage, we review both the contract and the actual work performed to conduct a detailed analysis of potential worker status. We systematically organize messenger records, emails, and past payment practices to prevent the formation of justifications for refusing payment. Where worker status is recognized, we pursue claims that include unpaid wages, severance pay, and statutory late payment interest (20% per annum under Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of its Enforcement Decree). Where worker status is denied, we shift strategy to claims for unpaid service fees or damages under civil law. There is only one guiding principle. Whether the chosen approach makes it realistically possible to recover the money. If you are a freelancer losing sleep over this issue, remember clearly that you are not alone. If, on the other hand, you treat this matter lightly, even amounts that could have been recovered may be lost, and unpaid compensation can solidify into irreversible financial damage.
2026-02-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs Rehabilitation · Bankruptcy
If You’re Curious About Debt Relief and Repayment Options for Crypto Loans, Read This Carefully
Why Crypto Loans Become Problematic in Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Proceedings Crypto loans differ fundamentally from conventional personal loans or private lending, as the form of collateral and transaction pathways are often unclear or non-standard. In rehabilitation and bankruptcy practice, crypto loans typically fall into the following categories: Exchange-linked crypto loan products Private, peer-to-peer loans secured by crypto assets Loans provided through overseas crypto platforms Many debtors mistakenly assume that crypto-related debts do not need to be disclosed, or that overseas transactions fall outside Korean legal procedures. This assumption is highly risky. Once a debt is omitted, it may later be excluded from discharge and continue to survive. Moreover, if the integrity of the procedure is compromised, courts are more likely to dismiss the case or deny discharge. From the moment a debtor makes unilateral judgments, the case can begin to move in an unfavorable direction. How Crypto Loans Are Treated in Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Whether a crypto loan is recognized as a valid debt depends on the legal structure of the loan and the flow of funds. Where crypto assets were provided as collateral, courts must assess whether the collateral arrangement can be legally recognized as a secured claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (such as a rehabilitation secured claim or a separately satisfied claim). If the collateral structure is not legally valid, the debt is treated as a general rehabilitation claim or bankruptcy claim. In addition, the timing and method used to assess the market value of crypto assets are critical in determining the debtor’s asset pool. Price volatility and whether the crypto collateral has already been liquidated directly affect the feasibility of a rehabilitation repayment plan. In bankruptcy cases, further issues may arise, including: Whether repayments or collateral provided to specific creditors prior to filing are subject to avoidance actions under Articles 391–407 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act Procedural complications in claim verification and distribution involving overseas creditors In practice, many debtors become worse off not because of the amount of debt itself, but because the handling of crypto loans is legally flawed. Key Issues That Must Be Addressed When You Have Crypto Loans The reason crypto loan transactions and borrowing relationships must never be concealed is straightforward. Courts determine whether to approve a rehabilitation plan or grant a discharge based on the accuracy and completeness of the debtor’s asset and creditor disclosures (Articles 147, 148, and 564(1)(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Accordingly, full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities is mandatory. When properly organized documentation is submitted, proceedings tend to progress in a stable and predictable manner. Conversely, if the initial approach is incorrect, corrective orders are repeatedly issued, the risk of dismissal increases, and both time and costs escalate unnecessarily. At this stage, the debtor’s response strategy—and whether professional guidance is involved—often determines the outcome. For many individuals losing sleep over crypto loan issues, proper legal handling is the first step toward regaining stability. How Decent Law Firm Handles Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Cases Involving Crypto Loans Decent Law Firm approaches crypto loan cases by first restructuring the underlying transaction framework to align with court standards. We develop tailored response strategies based on loan type—exchange-linked products, overseas platforms, or private lending—and adjust for crypto holdings, liquidation timing, and market volatility so these factors do not negatively affect the procedure. Our assistance goes far beyond administrative filing. We provide strategy-driven legal handling designed to proactively prevent dismissal or denial of discharge. Rather than concluding that “crypto loans make rehabilitation impossible,” we focus on how crypto loans must be handled to make rehabilitation or bankruptcy legally viable. If crypto-related debts and assets are not accurately identified and properly addressed, they can materially undermine plan approval or discharge decisions. For this reason, a structured and professional response from the earliest stage is essential. Having crypto loans does not make rehabilitation or bankruptcy impossible. However, improper handling can make it impossible. You do not need to carry that risk alone—Decent Law Firm provides the legal strategy and response needed to navigate crypto loan issues effectively.
2026-02-06 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Is 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 Labor · Employment Disputes
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 Criminal
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 Crypto
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 Labor · Employment Disputes
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 Criminal
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 -
Blogs Crypto
A Legal Guide by a Pseudo-Investment Advisory Lawyer
The Decisive Difference Between Pseudo-Investment Advisory Business and Investment Advisory Business Many operators run paid “signal groups” or trading rooms on platforms such as KakaoTalk or Telegram relying solely on a pseudo-investment advisory business registration. However, in actual legal assessments, the most critical issue is individualization. A pseudo-investment advisory business provides non-personalized, general investment information to an unspecified audience through publications, broadcasts, or online postings. In contrast, an investment advisory business offers customized advice tailored to a specific individual’s investment profile, which requires formal registration with the Financial Services Commission. Following the 2024 amendment to the Capital Markets Act, structures in which operators receive compensation and directly exchange opinions with users online are increasingly likely to be classified as investment advisory services. Accordingly, responding to member questions in paid groups by specifying particular stocks or precise buy/sell timing carries a high risk of being deemed unregistered investment advisory activity, subject to criminal penalties. Key Prohibited Practices Operators Must Avoid In investigations and disputes, the following conduct most frequently becomes problematic: First, providing individualized investment advice. The moment an operator gives a member a tailored instruction such as “Do not average down on this stock,” it may constitute a violation of the prohibition on unregistered investment advisory services. Second, guaranteeing profits or covering losses. Statements such as “principal guaranteed” or “fixed monthly returns of 5%” may themselves violate the Capital Markets Act and can result in up to three years’ imprisonment or fines of up to KRW 100 million. Third, false or exaggerated advertising. Posting fabricated profit screenshots, impersonating investors, or claiming superiority over competitors without objective evidence may escalate into fraud charges. Mandatory Compliance Measures and Internal Controls When operating signal groups or investment-information services, the following points must be clearly disclosed on websites, notices, and pinned messages: No one-to-one consultations or asset management services are provided Investment losses are possible and responsibility rests solely with the investor The operator is a registered pseudo-investment advisory business, not a licensed financial investment company In addition, pseudo-investment advisory registrations must be renewed every five years. Failure to complete mandatory education or having a prior violation of financial laws may result in rejection of the registration. For virtual asset (cryptocurrency) signal groups, the Virtual Asset User Protection Act applies. Engaging in insider trading, market manipulation, or unfair trading practices may lead to severe criminal penalties, including imprisonment of one year or more. In particular, pump-and-dump schemes involving coordination with specific projects are currently under intensive regulatory scrutiny. Why Legal Support from Decent Law Firm Matters Decent’s virtual asset and financial regulation team goes beyond simple registration assistance, providing comprehensive management of legal risks across the entire business structure. Formation and operational advisory We design service structures, terms of use, and advertising language to ensure compliance within the scope of pseudo-investment advisory regulations. Criminal investigation defense We respond to allegations of unregistered advisory services, fraud, or unfair trading by developing legal arguments focused on the absence of conspiracy and fraudulent intent. Civil dispute representation We handle investor damage claims by structuring defenses based on the validity of limitation-of-liability clauses and comparative negligence principles. In an evolving regulatory environment, compliance must begin before issues arise, not after enforcement actions commence. If you are concerned about legal risks related to operating a pseudo-investment advisory business or signal group, we recommend consulting with a specialized lawyer for a proactive legal review.
2026-01-28 Naver Blog -
Blogs Labor · Employment Disputes
Re-Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Amended Trade Union Act: Changes to the Criteria for Separating Bargaining Units
Background and Key Changes of the Re-Notice The Ministry of Employment and Labor initially issued a notice of proposed amendments to the Enforcement Decree, with the public comment period running until January 5, 2026. During this process, various opinions were raised by both management and labor groups. Reflecting these views, the Ministry prepared a revised draft of the amended Enforcement Decree and announced that a re-notice period would be conducted from January 21 to February 6, 2026. Under the original draft, the criteria for separating bargaining units among unions within a principal contractor and between principal contractor and subcontractor unions were assessed under the same standards. Four factors were presented: significant differences in working conditions, employment type, bargaining practices, and the relationship between labor unions. By contrast, the revised draft represents a significant change in that it further specifies the intent of the amended Trade Union Act by distinguishing between (i) common criteria applicable to all cases and (ii) criteria to be applied with priority in principal contractor–subcontractor bargaining situations. Dual-Track and More Specific Criteria for Separating Bargaining Units The core feature of the revised draft is the introduction of a dual-track framework for determining bargaining unit separation. It distinguishes between (i) common criteria generally applicable to bargaining unit separation (Article 14-11(3) of the Enforcement Decree) and (ii) criteria to be applied on a priority basis in bargaining between principal contractor and subcontractor labor unions (Article 14-11(4) of the Enforcement Decree). For separation of bargaining units among labor unions within a principal contractor, the common criteria—largely similar to the existing framework—continue to apply. While the revised draft provides more detailed explanations regarding differences in working conditions, employment types, and bargaining practices, and adds “equivalent grounds,” the fundamental analytical framework does not differ substantially from the prior approach. However, a separate set of criteria has been newly introduced for bargaining between principal contractor and subcontractor labor unions. Where a subcontractor labor union demands bargaining with a principal contractor, the revised draft expressly provides that “interests between labor unions” and the “potential for conflicts between labor unions” should be considered with priority over the common criteria. This clarification institutionalizes the principle that bargaining unit separation may be permitted even where conflicts of interest exist due to differences in upper-level union affiliations. Such differentiation is generally viewed as a mechanism to prevent confusion in labor-management relations within principal contractors under the amended Trade Union Act framework. Implications and Key Considerations for Companies While maintaining the principle of single bargaining channel unification, the revised draft places greater emphasis on inter-union interests when determining bargaining unit separation, thereby expanding the possibility for subcontractor labor unions to engage in independent bargaining with principal contractors. This also implies that bargaining unit separation may occur not only between principal contractor and subcontractor unions, but also among subcontractor labor unions themselves. Accordingly, companies should recognize that bargaining demands from subcontractor labor unions may materialize as tangible management risks and prepare accordingly. In particular, given the introduction of the broad and flexible standard of “equivalent grounds,” the practical impact may grow depending on how the Labor Relations Commission interprets and applies the amended Enforcement Decree in the future. For corporate officers and HR professionals experiencing uncertainty over these developments, it is crucial to emphasize that early response and strategic planning are of paramount importance. Decent Law Firm’s Support for Responding to the Amended Trade Union Act Decent Law Firm provides practice-focused advisory services on issues arising from the amended Trade Union Act, including changes in bargaining structures, principal contractor–subcontractor labor relations, and disputes concerning bargaining unit separation. Through comprehensive, situation-specific support—ranging from legal review at the bargaining demand stage to representation in Labor Relations Commission proceedings and strategic planning for labor-management relations—we assist companies in managing legal uncertainty and risk. In an evolving labor environment, accurately understanding legal standards and responding proactively is essential to maintaining stable corporate management. We therefore recommend seeking legal advice sooner rather than later.
2026-01-27 Naver Blog
