We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Workplace Harassment Lawyer: Why You Need to Act Before It's Too Late
What Does Workplace Harassment Mean Under the Law? Under Korea's Labor Standards Act, workplace harassment refers to conduct in which an employer or employee uses a position or relationship of superiority in the workplace to inflict physical or mental suffering on another employee, or to worsen the working environment, beyond the appropriate scope of work. Verbal abuse, ostracism, and unfair exclusion from work all qualify as harassment Employers must investigate promptly upon receiving a report Retaliating against a reporting employee carries a penalty of up to 3 years in prison or a fine of up to KRW 30 million Because the legal requirements and procedures are clearly defined, it is important to work with an attorney experienced in workplace harassment cases to organize the facts of your situation. From Reporting to Remedy: What Is the Process? Internal report — Filed with the HR department or a reporting center Fact-finding investigation — Conducted objectively by the employer Corrective action — Disciplinary measures against the perpetrator, workplace reassignment, etc. Complaint to the Ministry of Employment and Labor — Can be filed separately from an internal report, or if the employer's response is inadequate Damages claim — A civil lawsuit can be pursued alongside, if necessary Since early evidence collection and how you respond during questioning can determine the outcome, it is advantageous to seek legal assistance from the very start of the investigation. A Real Case: How a Workplace Harassment Case Was Resolved [Case We Handled] Ms. B, an employee in her twenties, endured ongoing verbal abuse and exclusion from work by a superior, but felt discouraged when the company's investigation turned out to be superficial. With the help of Decent Law Firm, she systematically organized recorded conversations and messenger records and filed a complaint with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, ultimately securing disciplinary action against the perpetrator and improvements to the working environment. As this case shows, the outcome of a workplace harassment case can vary greatly depending on how the evidence is organized and how the process is handled. Why You Should Work With Decent Law Firm Workplace harassment cases require the following areas of professional support: Protecting employee rights during the internal investigation process Preparing complaint and remedy application documents for the Ministry of Employment and Labor Developing a strategy for damages claims Drawing on extensive experience handling workplace harassment cases, Decent closely analyzes each client's situation and works alongside them systematically from the reporting stage through to final resolution. Workplace harassment is a classic example of a case where securing evidence becomes more difficult as time passes. If you are already experiencing harassment or considering filing a report, we encourage you not to make the decision alone, but to first calmly review the facts with an experienced professional. Decent is always ready to provide prompt, accurate consultations and help you find the best path forward for your situation.
-
The CATFI Rug Pull Case and Unfair Trading Under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act
Meme coins often attract investors because they can be launched relatively quickly and may experience sharp price increases within a short period. Decentralized exchanges, or DEXs, facilitate trades through smart contracts and automated protocols rather than a centralized order-matching system. Once a token has been issued, trading can begin by creating a liquidity pool without going through the formal listing review typically required by a centralized exchange. This structure can attract investors seeking early exposure to newly launched tokens. At the same time, there has been growing concern over so-called rug pulls, in which project operators use false or misleading information to drive up the price of a token and then sell their holdings all at once. In May 2026, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office indicted individuals involved in the issuance of the meme coin CATFI on charges including violations of Korea’s Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants circulated false positive announcements, manipulated the token’s trading activity, and obtained unlawful profits. The case was the first in which prosecutors applied the Act’s provisions on fraudulent unfair trading. This article examines the laws that may apply to rug pulls and the key legal issues arising from such cases. Laws That May Apply to Rug Pull Schemes A rug pull is not a separately defined criminal offense under Korean law. Depending on how the scheme was structured, several provisions may apply. Where false disclosures, artificial trading activity, or market manipulation are involved, Article 10 of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users, which prohibits unfair trading practices, may become relevant. Category Main Conduct Relevant Provision Use of material non-public information A virtual asset service provider, issuer, or other relevant party uses undisclosed material information for trading Article 10(1) Market manipulation through matched or wash trades Parties coordinate transactions in advance or conduct trades without a genuine transfer of economic ownership Article 10(2) Market manipulation through actual trades Trades are carried out to induce others to buy or sell by artificially moving the market price Article 10(3) Fraudulent unfair trading A person uses fraudulent means, schemes, or deceptive practices, or makes false statements about material facts Article 10(4) If the parties behind a rug pull used multiple wallets to trade among themselves and artificially inflate transaction volume, Article 10(2) may apply. If investors were attracted through false lock-up announcements, fabricated social media engagement, or other misleading representations, Article 10(4) may also become relevant. A violation of these provisions may result in imprisonment for at least one year or a fine equal to three to five times the profit obtained or loss avoided through the violation under Article 19(1). Where the unlawful profit or avoided loss is at least KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion, the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for at least three years. Where the amount is KRW 5 billion or more, the punishment may be life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least five years under Article 19(3). Separate from criminal penalties, the Financial Services Commission may also impose an administrative surcharge in connection with unfair trading conduct. Administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings are legally distinct and may be pursued through separate procedures. The CATFI Case and the Legal Test for a Rug Pull According to the prosecution, the individuals involved in CATFI divided their holdings across multiple wallets and announced a lock-up plan on social media even though the promised restrictions were not actually observed. An influencer allegedly presented himself as an independent third party with no connection to the issuing group and encouraged investors to purchase the token. The defendants were also accused of using multiple wallets to create the appearance of active trading and rising demand. Once purchases by ordinary investors increased, they sold their holdings in a large-scale disposal. The token reportedly increased in value by approximately 1,001 times within 26 hours of issuance. Around 6,000 individuals purchased the token, and 256 investors were found to have suffered losses totaling approximately KRW 900 million. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants used approximately KRW 10 million in initial funds and obtained roughly KRW 400 million in sale proceeds. At the first trial hearing held on June 30, 2026, the defendants admitted the charges. Prosecutors requested a sentence of four years and six months for the influencer alleged to have led the scheme. However, a sharp decline in a token’s price or the failure of a project does not automatically establish a criminal rug pull. Virtual asset investments inherently involve price volatility. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between a genuine business failure and a scheme designed from the outset to deceive investors and extract funds. In practice, investigators may examine whether: ▪️ The parties had planned to sell their holdings before the token was issued or concealed the true amount held by the project team ▪️ Lock-up or token-burning plans were falsely announced, or holdings were distributed across multiple wallets to disguise common ownership ▪️ Trading volume and price movements were artificially created, followed by the closure of social media channels or online communities immediately after the sale Key Legal Issues and Response Options 🔹Criminal Liability of Influencers and Marketing Personnel A person does not avoid criminal liability simply because they did not personally issue the token. An influencer, marketing agency, or account operator may be investigated as a principal offender or an accomplice if they coordinated with the issuing group, published false information, or recommended the token while falsely presenting themselves as an independent third party. Relevant evidence may include: ▪️ Records showing that tokens were transferred to the promoter before the marketing campaign ▪️ Messages concerning the sharing of sale proceeds or trading profits ▪️ Records showing that promotional content was published despite knowledge that the information was false These materials may be important in determining whether the person merely provided advertising services or knowingly participated in the scheme. 🔹Options for Investor Recovery Article 10(6) of the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users provides that a person who violates the unfair trading provisions may be liable for losses caused to users by the violation. Accordingly, investors may consider a civil claim for damages separately from any criminal complaint or prosecution. In practice, however, recovery may be difficult where the issuer operated through anonymous wallets. Identifying the responsible parties and proving a causal connection between the unlawful conduct and the investment loss can require a detailed review of both blockchain records and online promotional materials. Investors should therefore preserve relevant evidence as early as possible, including wallet addresses, transaction hashes, purchase records, social media posts, and announcements concerning lock-ups, listings, or partnerships. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice The CATFI case demonstrates that even where a meme coin is traded through a DEX, false announcements, coordinated trading, and artificial price movements may lead to liability under Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act. It also shows that affected investors may need to consider both criminal proceedings and civil claims for damages. Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice reviews on-chain transaction structures and blockchain fund flows in connection with rug pulls, market manipulation, criminal complaints, investigations, and civil damages claims. Where an investment loss appears to involve a rug pull or other unfair trading conduct, legal advice should be obtained at an early stage, beginning with the preservation and review of evidence. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.
-
False Naver Blog Posts Targeting Your Business in Korea: How to Request Removal
When Online Defamation Affects Your Business in Korea In South Korea, Naver remains one of the most influential online platforms for search, blogs, and reputation management. For businesses operating in Korea, what appears on Naver can directly affect customer trust, business inquiries, and brand credibility. In recent years, some businesses have discovered Naver blog posts that mention their company or brand name together with words such as “scam,” “fraud,” or “victim warning.” These posts may appear professional and persuasive, even when the underlying facts are inaccurate, misleading, or unrelated to the business itself. For foreign-owned companies or international businesses operating in Korea, this type of reputational damage can be especially difficult to detect and respond to. The content may be written in Korean, indexed on Naver, and viewed as credible by local customers before the company becomes aware of it. Under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (the “Network Act”), a business whose reputation or other rights have been infringed online may request deletion of the content or temporary blocking of access to the content. Applicable Law ▪️Article 44-2 of the Network Act: Deletion Requests and Temporary Measures Article 44-2(1) of the Network Act provides that a person whose rights, including privacy or reputation, have been infringed through information distributed via an information and communications network may request the relevant service provider to delete the information or publish a rebuttal. Under Article 44-2(2), once such a request is received, the service provider must take necessary measures, such as deletion or temporary blocking, without delay and notify both the requester and the person who posted the content. Where it is difficult to determine whether a rights infringement has occurred, or where a dispute between the parties is expected, Article 44-2(4) allows the service provider to temporarily block access to the content. The duration of such temporary measures may not exceed 30 days. ▪️Criminal Liability for Online Defamation If an online post contains false statements of fact that damage another person’s or company’s reputation, Article 70(2) of the Network Act may apply. The statutory penalty is imprisonment for up to seven years, disqualification for up to ten years, or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. Even if the statements are true, Article 70(1) may still apply if the post was made with intent to defame. In that case, the statutory penalty is imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. Category Legal Basis Possible Penalty Defamation by false statements of fact Network Act, Article 70(2) Up to 7 years’ imprisonment or KRW 50 million fine Defamation by true statements of fact Network Act, Article 70(1) Up to 3 years’ imprisonment or KRW 30 million fine Civil damages Civil Act, Article 750 Compensation for financial and reputational harm Criminal liability depends on the specific content, context, and intent behind the post. However, a business may still pursue platform-level removal or temporary blocking even where the criminal threshold is not yet clear. Key Legal Issues ▪️Scope of Defamation Under Article 44-2 The standard for requesting deletion or temporary blocking under Article 44-2 is broader than the standard for criminal defamation under Article 70 of the Network Act or Article 307 of the Criminal Act. In practice, the key issue is whether the online post infringes the company’s rights, including its reputation. It is not always necessary to prove criminal intent at the initial platform reporting stage. For example, if a Naver blog post places a company’s brand name next to terms such as “scam” or “fraud,” while the actual content concerns an unrelated impersonator or third party, the overall impression created for ordinary readers may still be misleading. In some cases, this may support a removal or temporary blocking request. Evidence of reputational harm is also important. Businesses should preserve records showing the impact of the post, such as customer complaints, cancelled inquiries, KakaoTalk messages, emails, screenshots, call logs, and changes in online search results. ▪️What Happens If the Poster Files an Objection If the person who posted the content files an objection, the temporary blocking may remain in effect for 30 days from the date the objection is received. After that period, the post may be restored. In that situation, the affected business may consider filing a defamation mediation request with the Korea Communications Standards Commission’s Internet Harm Relief Center. If mediation is successful, the settlement may have an effect similar to a civil settlement agreement. The Limits of Platform Reporting Alone Filing a removal request through Naver’s Rights Protection Center is an important first step, but it may not fully resolve the problem. If the poster files an objection, the content may be restored. If similar posts are uploaded again under different accounts or URLs, each post must usually be addressed separately. Where harmful posts are being published repeatedly or systematically, platform reporting alone may not be enough. In such cases, a formal letter of demand issued in the name of a Korean law firm, together with potential criminal complaints or civil damages claims, may be more effective. How Decent Law Firm Can Assist Responding to false or misleading online content in Korea requires more than simply submitting a platform report. Businesses must consider the wording of the removal request, the legal basis for rights infringement, the preservation of evidence, and the possibility of further civil or criminal action. Decent Law Firm assists businesses with each stage of this process, including removal requests, formal letters of demand, Korea Communications Standards Commission proceedings, criminal complaints, and civil damages claims where appropriate. If you have identified Naver blog posts or other online content that may be harming your business in Korea, please share the relevant URLs and a brief explanation of the impact. We will review the matter and advise on the most appropriate course of action. ※ This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any specific matter.
-
Crypto Signal Group Refunds in Korea: A Lawyer’s 4-Step Strategy (Watch for Recovery Scams)
Why is it so hard to get a refund from crypto signal groups? Many “signal groups” on Telegram or KakaoTalk advertise “principal guaranteed” or “monthly returns of X%.” However, their terms usually include broad disclaimers such as “all investment decisions are the user’s responsibility.” They also label their signals as “for reference only,” which is often used to avoid liability. In practice, some of these operations may involve: Unlicensed investment advisory services Profit-sharing structures that may trigger regulatory violations Potential issues under Korean laws on fraud, quasi-receipt of funds, or capital markets regulations For this reason, crypto signal group disputes are not just civil refund claims—they often involve criminal law considerations as well. Before pursuing a refund, check this first From our experience at Decent Law Firm’s Digital Asset Team, the key factor is not how much you invested, but how you were induced to join and how the service was structured. That makes early evidence collection critical. Capture ads and onboarding materials Save screenshots showing phrases like “guaranteed returns” or “risk-free investment,” including the platform (YouTube, Instagram, blogs, etc.). Secure payment records and refund terms Keep receipts, transfer records, account holder details (individual vs. company), and any written refund policies. Preserve communication and signal history Archive Telegram/KakaoTalk chats, signal logs, and any coercive language such as “just trust and follow.” Practical legal approach for recovery In practice, refund cases are not handled in a single step but through a structured sequence of actions. First, you need to clearly document your intent to terminate the service and request a refund. This should be done through channels such as chat, email, or text message, and should include when you joined, what service you received, what losses occurred, and why you are requesting a refund. Keeping screenshots and backups of this communication is essential. Next, rather than relying on informal complaints, it is often effective to send a formal legal notice through a lawyer. This document outlines misleading elements such as guaranteed returns, identifies potential legal violations, and sets a clear deadline and method for repayment. A properly structured legal notice often changes how the operator responds. At the same time, it is important to review whether the case involves criminal or regulatory issues such as fraud, illegal fundraising, or unlicensed advisory services. Filing complaints with investigative authorities or financial regulators can create additional pressure and may influence settlement negotiations. However, this step should be carefully aligned with the overall recovery strategy. If the operator refuses to refund or becomes unresponsive, the case may proceed to civil enforcement measures such as payment orders, damages claims, or asset freezing (including bank accounts, real estate, or crypto assets). Where multiple victims are involved, it may also be necessary to evaluate whether a coordinated group approach is more effective than individual claims. Beware of “recovery services” — secondary scams After suffering losses, victims are often approached by so-called recovery agencies claiming: “100% refund guaranteed” “Full refund if we lose” Be cautious if: Upfront fees are required The lawyer’s identity cannot be verified The service is not structured as a proper legal engagement These are common signs of secondary fraud. At Decent Law Firm, all matters are handled directly by licensed attorneys, with transparent communication throughout the case. What to prepare before consulting a lawyer To receive a meaningful assessment, prepare: Screenshots of advertisements and chat history showing how you joined Payment and transaction records Terms of service or refund policies Records of your refund request and their responses During the initial consultation, we assess: Refund viability Strength of evidence Optimal legal strategy (civil + criminal coordination) Crypto signal group disputes are time-sensitive and evidence-driven. The earlier you act, the higher the chances of recovery. If you are unsure whether your case qualifies for a refund or what steps to take next, consulting a legal professional early can make a significant difference.
-
Illegal Investment Advisory Fraud in Korea: The Longer You Wait, the Less Likely You Are to Recover Your Money
Reports of fraud involving unlicensed investment advisory services — operating through KakaoTalk group chats, Telegram channels, and YouTube — are increasing rapidly. What appears on the surface to be legitimate investment advice is frequently a structure in which an unregistered operator collects high fees while generating losses for clients. When fraud of this kind occurs, failing to pursue both criminal complaint and civil recovery strategy from the outset means that with every passing day, the money, the evidence, and the perpetrators become harder to find. When Does Unlicensed Investment Advisory Become a Legal Problem? Unlicensed investment advisory services differ from properly registered advisory firms in that they provide investment information to an unspecified number of people through standardized channels in exchange for payment. The problem arises when operators go beyond this — effectively directing specific buy and sell decisions on individual stocks — without any license or registration, and accepting no responsibility for investment losses. Common characteristics include the following. Specific stock recommendations and buy/sell timing instructions delivered through KakaoTalk or Telegram group chats, text messages, or YouTube High fees charged under the guise of monthly membership, access rights, or performance commissions Exaggerated past return figures and repeated use of fabricated profit verification images When losses occur, telling clients to deposit more money with promises that losses can be recovered At this point, the conduct may already give rise to criminal fraud charges, violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and violations of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving of Funds. Why a Criminal Complaint Should Come First Many victims' instinct is to begin with a refund request or a formal letter of demand. However, a significant number of unlicensed advisory operators use borrowed corporate identities or accounts registered in other people's names, repeatedly dissolve and re-establish entities, and move funds through overseas servers or cryptocurrency — all designed to make tracing extremely difficult. For this reason, where losses have reached a meaningful level, filing a criminal complaint promptly is the most effective way to compel investigators to trace account flows, identify co-conspirators, and prevent further harm to other victims. Securing the suspect's financial records, communications history, and immigration records through the criminal process also creates a significantly stronger position for any subsequent civil litigation or settlement negotiation. Preparing for a Criminal Complaint: What to Gather If you are seriously considering filing a complaint, organizing the following materials in advance will make the process considerably more effective. • How you were recruited: when you joined, and what advertisement or referral led you to the service • Conversation records: complete screenshots of group chat and one-on-one messages, particularly any statements guaranteeing returns or directing specific trades • Transaction records: all payment records for fees and commissions, including transfer confirmations showing the recipient account details • Trading history: the stocks recommended by the operator and your actual buy and sell records, along with the total loss incurred • Other victims: information about others who joined through the same channel or participated in the same group (important for coordinated complaints) This material gives investigators a concrete basis for understanding the structure of the operation and assessing whether fraud or unlicensed advisory activity occurred. Decent Law Firm's Digital Asset Team Allowing time to pass when losses have already occurred only benefits the other side. Detailed criminal complaint drafting: We identify and build the case for every applicable charge — including fraud and unlicensed fund solicitation — beyond the base Capital Markets Act violation, with the goal of securing a strong investigative response. Parallel civil recovery strategy: Alongside the criminal complaint, we pursue civil measures including provisional attachment and damages claims to freeze remaining assets and maximize recovery prospects. Coordinated complaint support: Where multiple victims are involved, we coordinate group filings to increase the scale of the case and elevate its priority within the investigative process. If you are unsure which materials to gather first, or whether a criminal complaint or civil claim should take priority, Decent Law Firm's digital asset team is ready to work through the facts with you from the very beginning and map out a strategy for your situation.
-
Crypto Trading Bots in Korea: Legal Risks Around VASP Registration and Market Manipulation
The number of operators building and running automated cryptocurrency trading services — commonly known as trading bots — is growing rapidly. What looks like a straightforward software product from the outside can carry significant legal exposure depending on how it is structured: potential classification as a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP), market manipulation liability, and civil damages claims are all live risks. What matters is not what the technology does, but how the service operates. When Does a Trading Bot Become a VASP? Simply developing or selling an automated trading program does not automatically make an operator a VASP. However, once a service crosses certain structural thresholds, it may no longer be characterized as software provision — it may be treated as managing or transacting virtual assets on behalf of customers. The following structures are particularly high-risk: Collecting API keys from multiple customers and running strategies centrally on the operator's servers Pooling customer assets in the operator's wallet, executing trades, and settling afterward Running copy trading or arbitrage strategies across multiple accounts simultaneously and charging fees or performance-based compensation Once a service falls into this category, questions arise around VASP registration obligations, anti-money laundering (AML) compliance duties, and criminal exposure for operating without authorization. The same trading bot can lead to entirely different legal conclusions depending on how it is designed. Market Manipulation and Criminal Liability Automated trading programs are under close regulatory scrutiny precisely because of their potential use in market manipulation. Placing large volumes of orders in rapid succession and canceling them to artificially inflate trading volume, or distorting the order book to mislead investors, are among the most common problem patterns. Recent court decisions in Korea have resulted in custodial sentences for market manipulation carried out using automated trading programs. The position that "it was just the program" is no longer a viable defense. Operators should be particularly alert to marketing language. Phrases like "volume management" or "chart making" can be used as evidence of criminal intent in a market manipulation case. Civil Liability: Misrepresentation and Duty to Explain More frequent in practice than criminal or regulatory action are civil disputes. Expressions commonly used to market trading bot services — "principal guaranteed," "fixed monthly returns," "AI generates profits automatically" — can give rise to false advertising claims and breach of disclosure duty if losses occur. Disclaimers in terms of service do not provide complete protection. Where a service failure — a server outage, an API error, an abnormal order — causes customer losses, liability will turn on whether the operator exercised the standard of care expected. Broad indemnity clauses will not shield an operator from liability where negligence or misrepresentation can be established. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Decent Law Firm's digital asset team works at the intersection of technology and financial regulation. We help operators build legally sound businesses from the ground up. VASP analysis: Full review of service architecture to identify and eliminate unauthorized operation risk before it becomes a problem. Algorithm compliance review: Legal guidance on trading strategies to ensure they cannot be characterized as market manipulation. Terms of service and marketing compliance: Drafting and reviewing documentation to minimize false advertising exposure and build defensible terms for civil disputes. Running a service without legal review is unnecessary risk. If you are designing or operating a crypto trading bot service, contact Decent Law Firm's digital asset team for a clear-eyed assessment of where you stand.
