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