-
BlogsLegal responses every employer accused of violating the Labor Standards Act must review
Violations of the Labor Standards Act start with “structure,” not “intent” In practice, many employers say, “I didn’t know the law,” or “I was just following common practice.” However, violations of the Labor Standards Act may result in criminal liability once intent is recognized, and ignorance of the law does not exempt an employer from responsibility. In reality, most problems do not stem from bad faith, but from the gap between statutory standards and actual workplace operations. Industry practices, internal customs, or long-standing methods may feel familiar in daily operations, but they can lead to completely different conclusions in legal assessments. In particular, when a business expands without a structured HR and labor management system, small mistakes tend to accumulate and eventually develop into disputes. The party experiencing the greatest anxiety and pressure in this process is often the employer. For those lying awake at night, struggling alone to determine how to respond, this article aims to provide a realistic framework for understanding the situation. One point must be made clear: issues under the Labor Standards Act are never trivial. A misstep in the initial assessment can escalate into full criminal proceedings. Common types of Labor Standards Act violations involving employers Cases that proceed to investigations or litigation show consistent patterns of violation. First, wage-related issues. These include failure to meet minimum wage requirements, misinterpretation of what counts toward wages under Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Minimum Wage Act, and miscalculation of overtime, night work, or holiday work allowances. In particular, many employers use the label “comprehensive wage system” (fixed overtime pay) without satisfying the legal requirements established by case law—such as difficulty in calculating working hours, absence of disadvantage to employees, and explicit or implicit agreement—resulting in frequent legal issues. Second, working hours and break-time management. Situations where attendance records are missing or merely formal, or where break times exist only on paper and employees cannot freely use them, are investigated as violations of Article 54 of the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision, July 12, 2018, 2013Da60807, among others). Misunderstandings also frequently arise regarding special industry exceptions under Article 59 of the Act and the written agreement requirements for flexible working-hour systems. Third, disputes over severance pay and continuous service periods. Employers may believe that they created a formal break during contract renewals, but courts assess continuity based on the substance of ongoing employment, not formal interruptions (see Supreme Court en banc Decision, July 11, 1995, 93Da26168). This category also includes cases where the label “freelancer” or “fixed-term employee” does not align with the actual working arrangement. Fourth, violations related to documentation and formal requirements. Failure to prepare or deliver employment contracts, failure to report workplace rules, and omission of mandatory items in wage statements are often treated as simple mistakes, but are clearly regarded as violations during investigations. The real risks employers face when violating the Labor Standards Act Many employers assume the matter will end with an administrative fine, but the reality is different. Labor inspections can begin with corrective orders and escalate into criminal charges. It is not uncommon for a complaint by a single employee to expand into an investigation covering the entire workforce. Under Article 115 of the Labor Standards Act (the joint liability provision), not only the corporation but also the individual representative may be subject to criminal punishment, including the possibility of a criminal record due to fines. That said, if the employer can demonstrate that they exercised substantial care and supervision to prevent violations, exemption from liability may be possible (proviso to Article 115). Beyond this, employers must consider civil claims for retroactive wages or severance pay, damage to business reputation, and the spread of issues into investment and labor risks. Ultimately, a single HR issue can affect the entire business. How Decent Law Office changes the direction of response When an investigation or complaint is initiated, the first thing an employer should do is not to immediately provide statements or submit documents. The priority is to organize the facts, separate legal issues, and establish a response strategy. Internal attendance data, wage structures, and the consistency between contracts and actual practices must be reviewed first. Accordingly, Decent Law Office focuses on building statement strategies for labor inspections, conducting advance reviews of wage, working-hour, and severance structures, and establishing early defenses to minimize criminal risk. The firm also works in coordination with labor and accounting professionals to propose solutions that consider the entire business structure, rather than addressing violations in isolation. Whether Labor Standards Act issues remain a matter of post-incident damage control or are transformed into a preventive management system depends on the initial response. Before finding yourself labeled as an employer in violation of the Labor Standards Act, reviewing your structure and correcting course is the most realistic choice.
2026-01-22 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Must-read if you have suffered losses from a Bitcoin advisory investment scam
Why do “Bitcoin advisory” investment scams keep recurring? Recent cases reviewed through consultations show that the image of legitimacy created by the term “Bitcoin advisory” is a key factor amplifying investor losses. Terms such as advisory, consulting, and asset management simultaneously convey professionalism and an institutional feel, leading investors to place trust almost instinctively. The problem is that, when the actual structure is examined, the boundary between investment solicitation and advisory services is often virtually nonexistent. In many cases, victims are repeatedly encouraged to purchase specific coins or are instructed on precise timing for entering positions, while the provider formally inserts disclaimers stating that “the final decision rests with the investor.” In particular, when expressions such as guaranteed profits, loss compensation, or target returns by a certain date appear, these may constitute prohibited agreements for loss compensation or profit guarantees under the Capital Markets and Financial Investment Services Act (Article 55), and are highly likely to be evaluated as deceptive conduct constituting fraud. In practice, such representations serve as critical indicators when determining the establishment of fraud, and the same patterns are repeatedly observed in real cases. When to suspect fraud rather than a “simple investment failure” The point most investors struggle with is the mere fact that a loss occurred. However, not every loss amounts to fraud. That said, if the following elements are combined, the possibility of a Bitcoin advisory scam should be carefully examined: Whether there were promises of principal protection or loss compensation Whether upfront payments were required under the name of advisory fees, membership fees, or management fees Whether funds were transferred to personal wallets, overseas exchanges, or accounts under borrowed or third-party names If, in addition, the advisor avoids responsibility after losses occur, induces further deposits, or becomes unreachable, it becomes difficult to view the situation as a mere investment failure. From a legal perspective, the elements of fraud are assessed comprehensively: the existence of deceptive conduct, the victim’s mistake and disposition of property, and the occurrence of financial loss. In particular, in investment-fund fraud cases, whether the perpetrator had the intent or ability to return the principal at the time of the investment agreement is a key criterion (Supreme Court Decision, Sept. 26, 2013, 2013Do3631). Merely disclosing investment risk does not readily negate the establishment of fraud. If the invested funds were used for personal purposes rather than for actual investment, or if there was no intent or capacity to invest from the outset, fraud may be established regardless of whether risk disclosures were made (Daejeon District Court Decisions, Apr. 15, 2021, 2020Godan3110 and 2020Godan4443 (consolidated)). Key response points that must be organized immediately after Occurrence of Damage When Bitcoin advisory fraud is suspected, time is the most critical factor. First, all deposit records, message logs, wallet addresses, and TXIDs must be preserved immediately. Deleting messenger records or changing wallets significantly reduces the possibility of recovery. Extra caution is required if there are requests for additional transfers or for signing settlement agreements or written undertakings. Such actions may instead become evidence favorable to the perpetrator. Criminal complaints and civil claims for damages are separate procedures and can be pursued in parallel. However, the realistic possibility of recovery varies depending on factors such as whether the perpetrator can be identified, whether their assets can be traced, and whether liability can also be imposed on accomplices or platform operators. These elements must be considered collectively when formulating a response strategy. Early judgment determines later outcomes. For victims who are left alone to worry and feel anxious during this process, it is essential to clearly recognize that the choices made now will determine the feasibility of future recovery. Why legal assistance is necessary in Bitcoin advisory investment fraud cases In response, Decent Law Office first reconstructs the structure of the case in detail to determine whether it legally constitutes fraud. Under the label of “advisory services,” the firm analyzes what actions actually took place, and to what extent investment solicitation and management intervention occurred—based on contracts, messenger records, and fund flows. The firm also examines, from a legal standpoint, whether disclaimer clauses formally inserted into advisory agreements or terms of service can genuinely exempt liability. In many cases, the issue is not the existence of documents, but whether those documents truly reflect the actual transaction structure. Decent therefore focuses on clearly delineating liability based on substance rather than form. Additionally, during the investigative stage, the firm reviews the traceability of fund flows to assess the possibility of identifying perpetrators, the existence of accomplices, and the involvement of platforms or intermediaries. These cases require more than simply filing a complaint; the core objective is to establish a response strategy that keeps actual asset recovery in view. In Bitcoin advisory cases, the later the initial response, the more difficult it becomes to secure evidence and trace responsibility. Before it is too late, seek professional assistance to accurately identify the nature of the case and set the correct course of action.
2026-01-22 Naver Blog -
Blogs
China’s Export Controls on Japan, Three Critical Risks Korean Companies Must Address
At the beginning of 2026, a major shift in the global supply chain landscape has emerged. On January 6, 2026, the Chinese government announced sweeping export control measures targeting Japan, citing national security and national interest concerns. This development is not merely a bilateral issue between China and Japan. For Korean companies operating subsidiaries in China or sourcing key Chinese materials for transactions involving Japan, the impact is direct and potentially severe. Proactive legal and compliance preparation is now essential. China’s 2026 Export Control Announcement No. 1 Targeted Export Restrictions Against Japan On January 6, 2026, China’s Ministry of Commerce and the General Administration of Customs jointly issued “Announcement No. 1 of 2026,” imposing comprehensive export controls on Japan. This marks the first instance in which China has explicitly targeted a specific country through export control measures, signaling a structural shift in China’s trade and security policy. Key Measures Comprehensive ban on military-related exports All exports of dual-use items to Japanese military end users (MEU) or for military purposes are prohibited. Broad scope of controlled items Including rare earth elements, gallium, germanium, graphite, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, high-performance sensors, and drones. Catch-all controls Even non-listed items may be restricted if they are deemed capable of military end use. Prohibition of indirect or circumvention exports Supplies routed through third countries, including Korea, to Japan are subject to enforcement. Three Key Risks for Korean Companies China’s export controls extend beyond China–Japan trade and directly affect Korean businesses embedded in China-centered supply chains. 1. Export Restrictions on China-Based Korean Subsidiaries Korean companies manufacturing in China may face significant barriers or outright denial of export licenses when shipping products or components to Japan. If the Japanese counterparty is linked—directly or indirectly—to the defense sector, companies may encounter contractual non-performance risks and potential legal disputes. 2. Heightened End-User and End-Use Certification (EUC) Requirements Even where Japanese customers are civilian entities, Chinese authorities are likely to require strict and detailed proof that the goods will not be diverted to military use. This may result in: Prolonged licensing reviews Requests for supplementary documentation License denials All of which can disrupt delivery schedules and commercial relationships. 3. Sanctions and Blacklist Risks from Indirect Exports This is the most critical risk area. Where Korean companies import Chinese-origin materials, process them, and re-export finished products to Japan, Chinese authorities may view the transaction as an attempt to circumvent export controls. Such a determination could expose companies to: Regulatory investigations Inclusion on control or blacklist regimes Long-term restrictions on operations involving China Practical Compliance Checklist for Corporate Decision-Makers China’s export control regime should now be treated as a permanent compliance issue, not a temporary disruption. Korean companies should prioritize the following reviews: Classification of products based on HS codes, CAS numbers, and technical specifications Systematic management of end-user and end-use documentation Advance legal review of licensing requirements and regulatory exposure Review of force majeure and liability clauses in international contracts Export Controls Require Structural Legal Planning Decent Law Firm’s International Practice Team provides tailored legal solutions based on extensive experience in cross-border regulatory compliance. Our advisory services include: Export control and sanctions risk assessments Structuring of re-export and third-country transaction models Legal support for overseas investments and China-based subsidiaries International contract risk management and dispute resolution As China’s export control regime continues to reshape global supply chains, early legal assessment and well-structured transactions are critical to maintaining business continuity and regulatory certainty. Decent Law Firm stands ready to support your export control and international compliance strategy.
2026-01-21 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Must-read if you are wondering how to review an employment contract and respond effectively
Why an employment contract is not a mere “formality,” but a risk-management document Employment contracts are often treated as formal documents used simply to complete the hiring process. In reality, however, a significant number of labor disputes originate from the wording of the contract itself. In many cases, contracts are formally executed but contain provisions that fail to meet the standards set by the Labor Standards Act and other relevant laws, or they repeatedly use clauses where the actual working conditions differ from those stated in the contract. In practice, once a dispute arises, the rights and obligations of the parties—and the scope of liability—are determined based on the working conditions specified in the employment contract. For this reason, reviewing an employment contract should not be viewed as damage control after a problem occurs, but as a preventive measure designed to block disputes from arising in the first place. This process is not a simple document check; it is the starting point for managing legal risks that may persist for years. Key clauses that most frequently cause problems in employment contracts Clauses that lead to disputes tend to follow consistent patterns. If the structure of wages is unclear—such as the distinction between base salary, bonuses, and various allowances (overtime, night work, holiday work, etc.)—disputes often arise during the calculation of ordinary wages, average wages, and retirement benefits (Labor Standards Act Article 2(1)5 and 6). Dispute risk also increases when provisions regarding prescribed working hours, overtime, night work, and holiday work are drafted in broad or vague terms rather than with sufficient specificity. In particular, comprehensive wage systems (fixed overtime pay systems) are frequently applied in form only, without satisfying the required conditions—such as difficulty in calculating actual working hours—resulting in especially high legal risk (see Supreme Court Decision, May 20, 2010, 2008Da6052, among others). Issues also commonly arise where the title of a worker—such as fixed-term employee or freelancer—does not match the actual nature of the work performed, leading to disputes over employee status. Likewise, unclear standards for contract expiration, termination, or renewal repeatedly become sources of conflict (Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees, Article 2(1)). Ultimately, the core issue is not whether a clause exists, but how it is drafted, which is precisely why a proper employment contract review is necessary. When is an employment contract review necessary? The most effective time is before entering into the contract, specifically just prior to signing. Review is also critical when a contract is renewed, working conditions are changed, or personnel and compensation systems are restructured. It is likewise necessary when discrepancies emerge between the terms stated in the contract and how they are actually implemented—particularly with respect to wages, retirement benefits, and working hours—or when early signs of dispute appear. Conducting an employment contract review in advance, rather than after a dispute has already arisen, can significantly reduce legal costs and risks. For those who feel uncertain or anxious due to legal ambiguity surrounding their employment contract, it is important to understand that professional review at an early stage can decisively influence the outcome of any future dispute. Conversely, delaying proper review and response may expand the scope of legal liability or make dispute resolution more difficult, requiring a cautious and proactive approach. Decent Law Office’s approach to employment contract review Decent Law Office does not stop at refining wording. Each clause is analyzed for risk based on real labor disputes and judicial precedents, with a focus on structural vulnerabilities that could lead to conflict. Furthermore, the firm considers response strategies that can be immediately implemented should a dispute arise in the future. Through this approach, employment contract review becomes not a one-time procedure, but an ongoing risk-management tool. An employment contract is not a document to consult after a dispute occurs—it is a document designed to prevent disputes from occurring at all. With Decent Law Office, a single employment contract review can reduce long-term accumulated legal risks, and that choice ultimately protects both the organization and the individual.
2026-01-20 Naver Blog -
Blogs
An Initial Response Guide to Achieve a Favorable Outcome After an Assault
What to do first immediately after an assault: securing safety and creating records Just because the assault has ended does not mean the danger has completely passed. The very first priority is to separate from the scene and prevent further confrontation. Put physical distance between yourself and the assailant, and seek help from people nearby to stabilize the situation. In cases of assault, the general rule is to call 112 and request police dispatch. If there is an imminent risk or ongoing threats, reporting immediately is essential. If injury is suspected, you should also request medical assistance through 119. Dispatch records and call logs generated at this stage often become the starting point for later fact-finding. Many victims think, “It will probably get better after some time,” but once initial response is delayed, objective evidence disappears quickly. Medical records and evidence collection: key factors that determine the outcome The significance of medical records Even if the pain feels vague or the injuries do not appear severe, it is important to visit a hospital as soon as possible. Medical certificates, treatment records, and receipts for medical expenses are not merely reference materials—they are critical evidence in both criminal proceedings and damage compensation assessments. Evidence must be collected “lawfully” Bruises and wounds change over time, so photograph them immediately from multiple angles If there are witnesses, secure their contact information and make a brief note of when, where, and what they saw For nearby CCTV footage, request preservation first rather than viewing (if preservation is missed, footage may be deleted) Recording the assault itself or conversations before or after the incident can help secure evidence That said, the admissibility of recordings is determined by a comprehensive review of how the recording was made, the credibility of the content, and whether it was edited. It is therefore important to clearly document the timing and circumstances of the recording. When assaulted, the key is not collecting as much evidence as possible, but securing evidence properly, so it does not become disputed later. Reporting, filing charges, and intent to punish: an irreversible decision point A 112 report initiates on-site intervention and fact verification. A criminal complaint, on the other hand, is a formal procedure that documents both the facts and the intent to seek punishment. Under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of assault is classified under Article 260(3) as an offense prosecuted only upon the victim’s complaint (a crime subject to the victim’s intent). Accordingly, the decision to express or withdraw an intent to punish can dramatically change the direction of the case. Once a statement of no intent to punish is submitted, it may be difficult to reverse after a certain point. In addition, whether the incident is classified as simple assault, injury, or aggravated assault involving a dangerous object changes not only the applicable provisions, but the entire procedural path. If this classification is misjudged at the initial stage, it is often very difficult to correct later—no matter how much explanation is provided afterward. Early organization and documentation determine the result In assault cases, investigative authorities and courts make decisions based on clearly organized facts and lawfully obtained evidence. At this stage, Decent Law Office provides the following practical assistance: Organizing facts and constructing a clear timeline Determining the appropriate charges and procedural strategy Reviewing and structuring evidence with a focus on admissibility Responding to issues related to intent to punish and settlement documentation Many people who experience an assault think, “This seems manageable on my own.” However, if early organization and documentation are insufficient, the outcome can move in a direction completely different from what was intended. For clients who are troubled and anxious about this issue, assistance that sets the direction correctly from the outset can make a clear difference. Assault cases are decided in the details. What you organize and what you preserve at the initial stage directly affects the final conclusion. Decent Law Office plays a practical role right at that starting line. Before it is too late, consider obtaining professional assistance to prepare materials that are appropriate for your situation.
2026-01-20 Naver Blog -
Blogs
Must-read if you want to avoid punishment for violating Korea’s Anti-Money Laundering Law
Why anti–money laundering (AML) cases become a problem The Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the “Specified Financial Information Act,” often called the AML Act) is a core law aimed at preventing money laundering (AML) by regulating money-laundering activities and the financing of public-intimidation/terroristic acts through financial transactions. This law is not so much a statute that directly punishes the act of money laundering itself; rather, it focuses on regulating the financial transaction order through measures intended to prevent money laundering—such as reporting obligations for financial institutions, customer due diligence (KYC) obligations, and reporting/registration obligations for virtual asset service providers (VASPs). Because of this, cases repeatedly arise in which a person becomes a target of investigation for alleged AML law violations even though they did not directly commit a crime, simply because they failed to exercise sufficient caution regarding the source of funds or the structure of the transaction. Recently, in practice, issues often arise in situations involving virtual asset (crypto) transactions, movement of funds using corporate accounts, and intermediary/relay structures involving third parties. Even if a transaction appears normal on the surface, legal risk can arise if the origin and flow of funds are not clear. In what situations can you become implicated in a violation of the AML law? Violations of the Specified Financial Information Act are intent crimes, meaning punishment requires proof of intent. However, intent includes not only direct intent, but also dolus eventualis (reckless/conditional intent). If a person recognizes the possibility that the criminal result may occur and internally accepts that risk, intent may be found. This is determined not only by the actor’s statements, but by a comprehensive evaluation of specific circumstances, including the external form of conduct and the situation. Lending your financial account to another person or providing an access medium (e.g., authentication tools) may constitute a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Article 49(4) of that Act). In addition, if you assist someone in conducting financial transactions under another person’s real name for the purpose of an evasive or unlawful act, you may be liable as an aider for a violation of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (Financial Real-Name Act) (Article 6(1) and Article 3(3) of that Act). However, under the Financial Real-Name Act, an “evasive/unlawful act” must rise to a level comparable to the concealment of illegal assets, money laundering, financing of public-intimidation/terroristic acts, or evasion of compulsory execution. There is case law holding that simply being used as an account to receive fraud proceeds from electronic financial fraud is, by itself, difficult to regard as an “evasive/unlawful act” (Incheon District Court, Feb. 11, 2022, Decision 2021No3685). That said, in practice, there have been many cases where something appeared to be a normal investment settlement or payment for services, but was judged to be a channel for transferring illegal funds, triggering an investigation. In particular, when repeat transactions, large amounts, and a complex transaction structure are intertwined, criminal suspicion becomes much stronger. Key response points you must consider if you become implicated Money-laundering-related crimes punish not only principal offenders but also aiders and abettors. Therefore, even if you did not directly obtain or store criminal proceeds, you may be punished as an accomplice if you engaged in conduct that facilitated money laundering. For aiding/abetting liability to be established, the principal’s crime must satisfy the statutory elements and be unlawful, and the aider must have intent to assist along with awareness that the principal’s conduct constitutes an act meeting the elements of the offense. However, in AML cases, what matters more than whether you committed a formal act is how you were involved in the flow of funds and whether you could have recognized what was happening. In practice, factors like the following are reviewed comprehensively: Whether you committed specific acts that constitute money laundering or aiding/abetting money laundering Whether you knew, or could have known, that the funds were criminal proceeds or other illegal assets Whether your involvement was merely part of routine 업무 (work-related involvement), or whether you had an intent to facilitate money laundering In virtual asset cases, whether you fall under the Specified Financial Information Act’s definition of a “virtual asset service provider (VASP)” and whether you fulfilled the reporting/registration obligations Also, the fact that the transaction structure looked normal does not, by itself, negate legal responsibility. In areas such as virtual asset transactions, the use of corporate accounts, and third-party relay structures, the key standard is substance over form—the reality, not the appearance. Financial transactions or virtual asset transactions conducted in Korea are subject to the Specified Financial Information Act. Even if the transaction occurs overseas, it may still fall under the Act if it is conducted through Korean financial institutions or virtual asset service providers. Assistance from Descent Accordingly, Descent Law Office approaches AML cases not as a simple response to allegations, but through a structure-focused analysis. Reflecting the characteristics of virtual asset and corporate transactions, the firm reviews fund flows and each party’s role in a multidimensional way, and from the early stages of an investigation, establishes a response strategy that considers both criminal and civil risks. Based on extensive practical experience in similar cases, the firm provides realistic defense direction rather than merely formal advice. In AML matters, outcomes can vary greatly depending on the timing and manner of response, and early choices can determine the course of the case. Before it is too late, consult a professional expert first.
2026-01-19 Naver Blog
