-
BlogsIf 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 -
Blogs
Key Strategies That Can Determine the Outcome of a Traffic Accident Criminal Settlement
Criminal Risks Faced by the At-Fault Driver After a Traffic Accident Immediately after an accident, many at-fault drivers experience confusion when they are contacted by investigative authorities, even after having completed insurance reporting procedures. Questions commonly arise, such as: “Why is a criminal process involved if insurance has already been applied?” “Is imprisonment possible if no settlement is reached?” Not all traffic accidents lead to criminal punishment. However, criminal liability becomes an issue in cases involving fatal accidents, serious bodily injury, or accidents falling under one of the 11 statutory exceptions set forth in the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Article 268 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who causes death or injury to another through occupational negligence or gross negligence may be punished by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. Where an accident falls under the exceptions of Article 3(2) of the Traffic Accident Special Cases Act, or where the driver is not covered by comprehensive insurance, criminal punishment may apply, and depending on the severity of the case, the possibility of actual imprisonment cannot be ruled out. The Meaning and Role of Criminal Settlement Payments in Traffic Accidents Criminal settlement payments in traffic accident cases are not merely civil compensation for damages. In criminal proceedings, they serve as a significant sentencing factor in assessing whether meaningful victim recovery has occurred. Where a criminal settlement is reached, and where prosecution cannot be initiated against the victim’s explicit will pursuant to the main text of Article 3(2) of the Traffic Accident Special Cases Act, a decision of non-referral or dismissal due to lack of prosecutorial authority may be possible. Even in other cases, prosecutorial discretion such as suspension of indictment may be considered, and at the trial stage, the settlement may affect decisions regarding imprisonment or suspended sentences. What investigative authorities and courts focus on is not “how much was paid,” but whether the victim’s damage has been substantively remedied and how the offender has fulfilled their responsibility. Offering an excessive settlement amount does not automatically result in leniency, and a purely formal settlement is unlikely to yield meaningful mitigation. In such cases, the core issue is not the amount of money, but the legal significance of the settlement within the criminal process. Limitations of Attempting a Criminal Settlement Without Legal Representation When an at-fault driver attempts to negotiate directly with the victim, several risks arise: Failure of settlement due to emotional confrontation Statements that may adversely affect the criminal investigation Drafting settlement agreements with unclear legal validity Issues concerning the validity and potential withdrawal of a letter of non-punishment The timing of the settlement is also critically important. A settlement reached at an early investigative stage may work favorably toward non-referral or suspension of indictment. However, a settlement reached after the commencement of trial may only be partially reflected in sentencing and may have limited impact on whether imprisonment is imposed. In particular, settlements reached at the Supreme Court stage cannot be reflected in sentencing, making careful judgment regarding timing essential. Even well-intentioned attempts to resolve the matter may lead to unfavorable outcomes, demonstrating the clear limitations of handling criminal settlement matters independently. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to Criminal Settlement in Traffic Accident Cases Decent Law Firm begins by diagnosing the applicable legal provisions and criminal risks faced by the at-fault driver from the earliest stage of the case. Determination of whether a criminal settlement is necessary Tailored strategies for each stage: police, prosecution, and trial Conducting settlement negotiations through legal representation to prevent emotional conflict Settlement terms and language are thoroughly reviewed, and following settlement, procedures are systematically linked, including submission of opinions requesting non-referral or suspension of indictment and organization of sentencing materials. If criminal charges are being discussed and there is uncertainty regarding the appropriate settlement amount or method, early legal consultation is critical. Traffic accident criminal settlement payments are not about “how much to pay,” but about choosing the right response at the right time. An incorrect decision may lead to irreversible consequences, while appropriate legal assistance can change the direction of the case. If you are struggling with this issue, you do not have to handle it alone. Before it is too late, even a brief consultation with a legal professional is strongly recommended before proceeding with the case.
2026-01-27 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Stock Trading Chat Room Scam Victims: If You Feel Lost About What to Do First, Read This
The First Thoughts After Realizing You’ve Been Scammed by a Stock Trading Chat Room Many clients who come to our firm feel overwhelming frustration and self-blame, unable to clearly distinguish whether what happened was merely an investment loss or a case of fraud involving deception. In most cases, operators of stock trading chat rooms argue along the lines of: “I never forced anyone,” or “Investing is entirely at your own risk.” These responses often further cloud a victim’s judgment, especially after losses have already occurred, leaving them unsure where to begin. However, choosing the wrong response strategy at this stage can lead to irreversible disadvantages later in both criminal proceedings and civil recovery efforts. Where Victims Inevitably Get Stuck When Acting Alone The first major obstacle victims face when trying to respond on their own is determining whether the case qualifies as a criminal matter or is merely a civil dispute. Online searches rarely provide clear standards, and in many cases, the materials victims gather are insufficient to function as legally admissible evidence. Even when victims prepare chat screenshots, bank transfer records, or voice messages, these materials often lack evidentiary value or fail to capture the critical elements needed to prove deception. In practice, many complaints end with decisions of “no charges” or “non-indictment,” most commonly because the evidence was insufficient to establish fraudulent intent. Chat logs from group chats, Telegram messages, text messages, and audio files are often submitted without proper organization or legal context. This is precisely where stock trading chat room fraud cases reveal the clear limits of handling matters alone. How to Respond to Stock Trading Chat Room Fraud The key factors in distinguishing simple investment losses from criminal fraud include: Whether there were deceptive acts, such as false profit guarantees or fabricated success records Whether losses were intentionally concealed Whether there was a repeated, organized structure designed to induce investment Immediately after discovering the damage, the most important step is not emotional confrontation but systematic collection and organization of evidence. Materials related to the chat room must be organized chronologically with clear context, and bank deposit and withdrawal records should be arranged to clearly demonstrate the full flow of funds. At the same time, potential civil recovery measures—such as claims for damages—should be reviewed alongside criminal complaints. As time passes, evidence becomes harder to secure, and proving deception and causation becomes increasingly difficult. Early, structured response is therefore critical. Practical Strategies for Recovering Damages At Decent Law Firm, we do not stop at drafting a criminal complaint. We analyze the operational structure of the chat room, its profit model, and the flow of funds to assess whether the overall structure constitutes fraud. This includes reviewing potential accomplices and interconnected schemes. Decent Law Firm handles cases through the following approach: Analysis of the fraud structure Evidence organization and preservation Criminal defense and prosecution strategies at each investigative stage Review of realistic civil recovery options Full representation through investigation and trial From the victim’s perspective, it is essential to make a sober assessment of whether the case is realistically actionable and the extent to which recovery can be expected.
2026-01-26 Naver Blog
