-
Blogs Labor · Employment DisputesUnemployment Benefit Fraud: What You Must Read If You’re Facing Potential Penalties
1. What Is Unemployment Benefit Fraud? The unemployment benefit system is a social security program designed to help workers maintain a minimum standard of living while preparing for reemployment after leaving a job. However, eligibility is restricted if a worker is dismissed for serious misconduct or voluntarily leaves employment without a justifiable reason. The system operates on the premise that eligible recipients receive official “recognition of unemployment” from the head of an employment security office and make sincere efforts to find new employment. Accordingly, the very foundation of the system is considered undermined in the following situations: Failing to report work activity or income despite having earned income Repeating only superficial or formal job-search activities In practice, the key issue in unemployment benefit fraud cases is not whether the recipient claims it was a simple mistake, but how the facts are evaluated. Under Article 47 of the Employment Insurance Act, recipients are required to report any employment during the unemployment recognition period. Concealing employment, failing to report income, or similar conduct is repeatedly deemed as receiving benefits through false or fraudulent means. It has become increasingly difficult to overturn a fraud determination merely by arguing that there was no intent. Administrative authorities and courts comprehensively assess not only the individual’s subjective intent, but also objective conduct, the actual nature of work and income, and the circumstances surrounding the failure to fulfill reporting obligations. 2. Common Types of Cases That Lead to Problems The most frequently identified cases in practice include: Failing to report income from part-time work or freelance activities Working at a business registered under a family member’s or acquaintance’s name Assuming that short-term or irregular income does not need to be reported Falsely processing a resignation by agreement with the employer while continuing to receive wages Although some of these practices are treated as “customary” in certain circles, they clearly constitute unlawful conduct and are legally classified as fraud. During investigations, authorities examine factors such as the form of work, whether compensation was provided, and the continuity of the activity. As a result, many of these cases ultimately lead to penalties for unemployment benefit fraud. 3. What Happens If You Are Caught? Once an issue is identified, an investigation by the employment center typically begins. You will then be asked to provide an explanation, and if fraud is confirmed, not only will the full amount of benefits received be recovered, but additional penalties may also be imposed. Depending on the case, an additional surcharge of up to twice the fraudulently received amount may be imposed (up to five times if there was collusion with the employer). In cases where benefits were obtained through false or fraudulent means, criminal liability may also arise (Article 62(2) of the Employment Insurance Act). In particular, if the employer was involved in the scheme, penalties can include up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million (Article 116(1)(2) and (2)(2) of the Employment Insurance Act). The critical point is that this issue may not end as a mere administrative matter. Depending on how the facts are assessed, it can escalate into criminal proceedings. Unemployment benefit fraud penalties should never be taken lightly. The assumption that “this probably won’t be a problem” is often the most dangerous decision. 4. If You Have Been Contacted for an Investigation — and How Decent Law Firm Can Help If you proceed with statements before properly organizing the facts, you may place yourself at a significant disadvantage. However, if a recipient voluntarily reports the issue before an investigation begins, additional penalties may be waived under Article 105(4) of the Enforcement Rules of the Employment Insurance Act. Moreover, the consistency and sincerity of your explanation can significantly affect the level of sanctions imposed. For those lying awake at night worrying about this issue, it is important to understand that the decisions you make and the way you respond at this very moment can shape the direction of your future. Conversely, ignoring the issue or responding carelessly can lead to irreversible consequences, such as restrictions on future unemployment benefits or a criminal record. Decent Law Firm has advised clients on unemployment benefit fraud matters where intent is ambiguous, where the existence of employment or income is disputed, and where the possibility of criminal proceedings has already been raised, helping them develop response strategies from the earliest stage. In this area, early judgment and response determine the outcome. Rather than trying to handle this alone, it is crucial to recognize that this is the point at which proper legal review and guidance are necessary.
2025-12-30 Naver Blog -
Blogs Criminal
Major Industrial Accident Liability: Legal Risks Companies Must Rigorously Assess
What Is a Serious Industrial Accident? A “serious industrial accident” is premised on an industrial accident as defined under Article 2(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Accordingly, an incident that does not qualify as an industrial accident under that Act cannot be recognized as a serious industrial accident under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. The Serious Accidents Punishment Act applies only when specific statutory requirements are met. The representative criteria are as follows: One or more fatalities; Two or more persons injured in the same accident who require medical treatment for at least six months; or Three or more persons diagnosed within one year with occupational diseases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as acute poisoning caused by the same hazardous factor. An important point to note is that the victims are not required to be “employees” in the strict sense. The Act covers all “workers” who provide labor, regardless of the contractual form, including subcontracting, outsourcing, or consignment arrangements. In practice, accidents that frequently give rise to issues include falls, crushing or entrapment accidents, collapses, and overturning incidents. Even if an accident appears to be a simple safety incident on its face, it may still be classified as a serious industrial accident if the statutory requirements are satisfied. While not every accident constitutes a serious industrial accident, the assumption that “this level of accident will be fine” can itself lead to significant legal risk. Key Risk Areas for Companies and Executive Management One of the most common misconceptions in serious industrial accident cases is the belief that liability ends at the level of on-site managers. In reality, investigations and trials focus on whether the business owner or executive management fulfilled their obligations to ensure safety and health under Articles 4 or 5 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act. A particularly critical issue is the effectiveness of the safety management system. Even where safety manuals and internal regulations formally exist, failure to ensure that they function in practice can be evaluated as an adverse factor. If a safety and health management system exists only on paper, or if training and inspections are conducted in a merely formal or perfunctory manner, this may be deemed a failure to fulfill the statutory duty to secure safety and health under Article 4. In such cases, the existence of documentation alone can actually serve as unfavorable evidence demonstrating non-compliance. Where a business owner or executive management violates Articles 4 or 5 and causes a serious industrial accident resulting in one or more deaths, they may be subject to imprisonment for at least one year or a fine of up to KRW 1 billion, or both. In addition, the corporation or institution itself may be fined up to KRW 5 billion (Articles 6 and 7 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act). Mandatory Actions Immediately After an Accident Occurs In serious industrial accident cases, the company’s response in the immediate aftermath often determines the outcome. Key considerations include: Organizing internal reporting and statement procedures; Separating internal investigations from external criminal investigations; Managing employee statements appropriately; Exercising caution when responding to the media, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the police. When a serious industrial accident occurs, the business owner must immediately suspend the relevant work, evacuate workers from the site, and take all necessary measures to ensure safety and health. In addition, the occurrence of the accident must be reported without delay to the Minister of Employment and Labor. Whether these initial measures were appropriate is a key factor in determining, during subsequent investigations and trials, whether executive management fulfilled their duty to secure safety and health. In practice, decisions made during the first few hours often shape the entire course of the investigation. It is essential to recognize that well-intentioned but ill-considered actions can, in some cases, increase legal liability rather than mitigate it. Decent Law Firm’s Support – Post-Incident Response and Preventive Measures Decent Law Firm does not limit its role in serious industrial accident cases to post-incident criminal defense. Our support includes: Criminal investigation 대응 and defense against criminal liability; Review and diagnosis of safety management systems and legal risk exposure; Development, revision, and verification of implementation of manuals, training programs, and internal regulations; Advisory services aimed at preventing the recurrence of similar accidents. The core of serious industrial accident 대응 lies not in one-time defensive measures, but in building a structure that can prevent recurrence. Even after an incident, Decent focuses on establishing sustainable compliance frameworks that meaningfully reduce the company’s long-term legal and operational burden. Before it is too late, we encourage you to seek assistance from experienced professionals.
2025-12-25 Naver Blog -
Blogs Crypto
Recovery 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 Corporate & Biz
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 Labor · Employment Disputes
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 Criminal
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 Crypto
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 Corporate & Biz
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 -
Blogs Criminal
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 Crypto 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 -
Blogs Crypto
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
