-
BlogsMinimizing 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
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 -
Blogs
Legal 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
