Pureun “Ian” Hong
MP ian@decentlaw.ioIan served as criminal law expert at YK Lawfirm, handling various corporate litigations including private fund investments, STOs, and capital markets.
- Criminal
- Class Action
- Crypto
- Real Estate Disputes · Construction
- Entertainment
성공사례
관련소식
-
법률정보Failure to Take Required Measures After a Traffic Accident in Korea: Legal Structure and How to Respond to a Police Investigation
What Does “Failure to Take Measures After an Accident” Mean? When a traffic accident occurs in Korea, the driver has an immediate legal duty to take certain measures. Under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, if a traffic accident causes injury, death, or property damage, the driver must immediately stop the vehicle, take necessary measures such as assisting injured persons, and provide personal information to the victim, including the driver’s name, phone number, and address. Leaving the scene without taking these required measures may constitute a criminal offense. This is commonly referred to in Korea as “failure to take measures after an accident” and should not be viewed as a simple administrative violation. Depending on the scale of the accident and whether anyone was injured, different laws may apply, and the potential penalties can vary significantly. Applicable Laws and Potential Penalties The main legal provisions that may apply are as follows. Type of Case Applicable Law Potential Penalty Failure to take measures after property damage Road Traffic Act, Articles 54(1) and 148 Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 15 million Failure to take measures after injury Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 5-3(1)2 Imprisonment for at least 1 year or a fine between KRW 5 million and KRW 30 million Failure to take measures after death Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, Article 5-3(1)1 Life imprisonment or imprisonment for at least 5 years Even if there appears to be no personal injury at the scene, criminal liability may still become an issue. In practice, the applicable charge may change if the victim later claims injury, or if CCTV footage, dashcam footage, or other evidence is secured after the incident. For this reason, drivers should be cautious about assuming that a minor collision cannot lead to a criminal investigation. Key Principles from Korean Supreme Court Decisions 1. The Duty to Take Measures May Arise Regardless of Fault The Korean Supreme Court has held that the duty to provide assistance and report an accident may apply to the driver involved in the accident, regardless of whether the driver was at fault for causing the accident. In other words, even if the other party was primarily responsible for the accident, the driver may still be required to stop and take necessary measures if the situation calls for victim assistance or restoration of traffic safety. This means that “it was not my fault” is not, by itself, a sufficient answer to a failure-to-take-measures allegation. 2. Awareness of the Accident Is an Important Issue A violation of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act is treated as an intentional offense. The Supreme Court has held that, for this offense to be established, the driver must have been aware that a person was injured or killed, or that property was damaged. Therefore, if the driver genuinely did not recognize that an accident had occurred, the legal analysis may change. This is often an important issue during the investigation stage. However, whether the driver was aware of the accident is not determined solely by the driver’s statement. Investigators may consider the impact level, vehicle damage, dashcam footage, CCTV footage, the victim’s reaction, and the driver’s conduct after the incident. Main Issues in a Police Investigation In failure-to-take-measures cases, the police and prosecutors usually focus on the following points. First, they examine whether the driver recognized the accident. This may involve reviewing dashcam footage, CCTV footage, the extent of impact, damage to the vehicle, and the surrounding circumstances. Second, they examine whether assistance or other measures were necessary. In some cases, the issue is whether the victim clearly indicated that no assistance was needed, or whether it was objectively clear immediately after the accident that emergency assistance was unnecessary. Third, they determine which charge should apply. A Road Traffic Act violation and a hit-and-run injury case under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes have different legal requirements and very different penalty levels. Because of these differences, the defense strategy should be based on the exact charge being investigated, the available evidence, and the driver’s conduct immediately after the accident. DECENT Law Firm’s Criminal Defense Team Failure-to-take-measures cases require a careful review of the accident circumstances, the victim’s alleged injury, the timing of the driver’s departure, and any steps taken after the incident. DECENT Law Firm’s criminal defense team assists clients from the early stage of traffic-related criminal investigations, including preparation for police questioning and submission of written legal opinions to the investigative authorities. If you have been contacted by the police in Korea after a traffic accident, or if you are unsure what charge is being investigated, it is important to review your situation before attending an interview or confirming an investigation schedule.
2026-06-09 -
법률정보
Criminal Risks and Terms of Service Issues for Crypto Investment Information Providers in Korea
Criminal Risks in Operating Crypto Investment Information Services As the virtual asset market continues to grow, services such as crypto trading signal rooms, paid investment information memberships, and crypto advisory-style services have become increasingly common in Korea. At the same time, regulatory scrutiny over paid investment information services has been increasing. According to the Financial Supervisory Service’s 2024 inspection results for quasi-investment advisory businesses, violations were found in 112 out of 745 businesses reviewed, including cases involving unregistered investment advisory activities. While these figures do not directly relate only to virtual asset cases, they show that Korean regulators are paying closer attention to paid investment information services in general. In practice, disputes that begin as refund complaints may escalate into criminal complaints involving fraud, violations of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or violations of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information. In these cases, terms of service, contracts, refund policies, and user communications often become key evidence. This article explains the major legal issues that may arise and why terms of service should be reviewed carefully before a dispute develops into a criminal investigation. Key Laws That May Apply Issue Main Legal Point Potential Penalty Fraud Obtaining property or financial benefit through deception Under the current Criminal Act, imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. The applicable law may vary depending on when the alleged conduct occurred. Capital Markets Act Violation Unregistered investment advisory activities may become an issue where the service involves security tokens or is combined with financial investment product advisory services Imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to KRW 100 million Specified Financial Transaction Information Act Violation Operating as an unregistered virtual asset service provider Imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million E-commerce Law Violation Improper restriction of cancellation, withdrawal, or refund rights Administrative fines, corrective orders, or other administrative measures Administrative sanctions and criminal penalties may proceed separately. Depending on the facts, the same business conduct may give rise to more than one legal issue. Why Terms of Service Become Evidence in Criminal Investigations When a refund dispute turns into a criminal complaint, investigators often review the terms of service and user agreements at an early stage. Terms of service can show what kind of service the business claimed to provide, how it explained investment risk and refund conditions, and whether the actual operation matched what was written in the documents. In particular, investigators may compare the terms of service with the actual sales process, user communications, and service operation in the following areas. 1. Fraud and Deceptive Conduct For fraud allegations, investigators do not look only at whether the user suffered a loss. They examine what the business told the user, whether the possibility of loss was clearly explained, whether any statements implied guaranteed profits, and whether the written terms matched the actual service. If the terms of service clearly state that investment losses may occur and that the service does not guarantee profits, and if similar explanations were repeatedly given during consultations or user communications, these records may help dispute allegations of deception. On the other hand, if the terms contain disclaimers but the actual sales process included statements similar to “guaranteed profits,” “loss recovery,” or “risk-free trading,” the inconsistency between the written terms and the actual operation may become unfavorable evidence. 2. Capital Markets Act Issues Capital Markets Act issues do not automatically arise in every crypto investment information case. However, if the relevant virtual asset may be treated as a security token or if the service is connected with stock, derivatives, or other financial investment product advisory services, the operation may be reviewed under the Capital Markets Act. For example, even if the terms describe the service as “general information provided to an unspecified number of users,” the actual operation may still become problematic if it involved one-on-one recommendations, bidirectional paid chat rooms, or personalized investment judgments. In that situation, the terms of service may be compared against how the service was actually operated. 3. Virtual Asset Service Provider Issues Under the Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, a business may be required to register as a virtual asset service provider if it is not merely providing information but is also involved in virtual asset transactions, brokerage, transfer, custody, or management. Even if the terms of service define the business as an information service, the actual operation may be reviewed differently if the company handled user assets, executed trades, assisted repeated transfers, or received fees for transaction-related services. Supreme Court Guidance on Virtual Asset Service Provider Status In a case involving the Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a person may generally be regarded as a virtual asset service provider if they continuously and repeatedly conduct virtual asset transactions for the benefit of unspecified customers or users and receive compensation for doing so. This means that the actual substance of the service matters. If the business repeatedly participates in transactions and receives fees, it may be difficult to rely only on written terms stating that the service is limited to information provision. Key Issues to Review at the Early Investigation Stage For operators of crypto investment information services, the early stage of an investigation is critical. The following issues should be reviewed first. First, the consistency between the terms of service and actual operation should be checked. This includes the scope of service, refund conditions, risk disclosure language, and how the service was actually provided to users. Second, businesses should review whether any terms, advertisements, landing pages, chat messages, or sales scripts could be interpreted as guaranteeing profits or compensating losses. Since the 2024 amendments to the Capital Markets Act, restrictions on quasi-investment advisory businesses have been strengthened, including rules related to bidirectional channels and misleading profit-guarantee advertisements. Third, the communication channel should be reviewed. Whether the service was operated as a one-way information channel or as a bidirectional advisory channel may affect the legal assessment. Fourth, the initial statement to investigators should be prepared carefully. If the operator explains the terms inaccurately or gives statements that do not match the actual operation, it may become more difficult to defend the case later. DECENT Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team Cases involving crypto investment information services often involve multiple legal issues at the same time, including fraud, the Capital Markets Act, the Specified Financial Transaction Information Act, and e-commerce regulations. DECENT Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Team assists clients from the early investigation stage by reviewing terms of service, service operation records, user communications, refund policies, and the legal issues relevant to each allegation. If you have been contacted by Korean investigative authorities, or if a refund dispute may escalate into a criminal complaint, it is important to review your response strategy before the first statement is given. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-05 -
법률정보
Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud in Korea: Can You Recover Your Money?
Current Trends in Unlisted Stock Investment Fraud Unlisted shares are shares that are not traded on a public stock exchange. In Korea, these shares are often sold through private transactions, intermediaries, or over-the-counter channels. Because pricing information is not publicly available and the transaction process is often opaque, unlisted stock investments can easily become a source of fraud. A common pattern involves inducing investors to pay large sums based on claims such as “the company will soon be listed” or “a KOSDAQ listing is imminent.” Victims often wait for years, believing that the listing has simply been delayed, and may not realize that they have been defrauded until much later. Recently, fraud schemes have become more sophisticated. Rather than selling shares that do not exist, some perpetrators sell shares that actually exist but are of little value, inducing victims to purchase them at prices dozens of times higher than their real market value. Because the shares themselves may exist, victims often find it difficult to recognize the fraud at an early stage. This article explains the laws and court precedents that may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud in Korea, as well as the legal options available for recovering investment losses. Applicable Laws Several Korean laws may apply to unlisted stock investment fraud cases, depending on the facts, the amount of damage, and the role of each participant. Category Main Issue Statutory Penalty Fraud Obtaining money or property by inducing investment through false information Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act: imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to KRW 20 million Aggravated Fraud Fraud involving damages of KRW 500 million or more Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes: imprisonment for at least 3 years Illegal Fund-Raising Receiving investment funds without authorization while promising principal or profit guarantees Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 50 million Violation of the Capital Markets Act Conducting unregistered investment advisory or discretionary investment management business Article 444 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act: imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to KRW 200 million Depending on the scale of the damage and the manner of involvement, multiple charges may apply at the same time. Key Factors in Determining Fraud For fraud to be established in an unlisted stock investment case, the investigative authorities must examine whether there was deception and fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that: “Unless the defendant confesses, fraudulent intent, which is a subjective element of fraud, must be determined by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial condition before and after the act, the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the transaction, and the process of performance.” — Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10570, December 27, 2019 In other words, even if the perpetrator claims that they genuinely believed the company would be listed, investigative authorities and courts may still find fraudulent intent based on objective facts, such as the company’s financial condition, false explanations, and how the investment funds were used. In practice, investigators often focus on the following circumstances: False listing schedule: whether the perpetrator stated a specific listing timeline despite the lack of any realistic basis. Misuse of investment funds: whether the money was used for purposes different from what was promised to investors. Impossibility of performance: whether it was impossible from the beginning to transfer the shares or perform the promised obligations. Active involvement of intermediaries: whether an introducer or broker received commissions or directly participated in persuading the investor. Fraud organizations may also attempt to avoid liability under the illegal fund-raising regulations by avoiding direct phrases such as “principal guarantee.” Instead, they may use indirect expressions such as “repurchase commitment if listing fails” or “compensation for the difference if the public offering price is lower than expected.” Under Korean court practice, these types of clauses may still be interpreted as an agreement to preserve principal or profits under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business Without Permission. Legal Strategy for Recovering Investment Losses Filing a criminal complaint does not automatically result in the recovery of the invested funds. In many cases, both criminal and civil procedures must be considered together. A criminal complaint can be useful because it allows investigative authorities to trace the flow of funds and secure evidence through compulsory investigation. If search and seizure is conducted at an early stage, it may help identify relevant accounts and determine where the investment funds went. Civil asset preservation measures, such as provisional attachment, are also important. These procedures are designed to freeze the perpetrator’s assets before they are disposed of or transferred. In many cases, filing for provisional attachment at the same time as, or shortly after, the criminal complaint can improve the possibility of recovery. The likelihood of recovery usually depends on the following factors: Assets held by the perpetrator: real estate, bank deposits, or other identifiable assets may be subject to provisional attachment. Traceability of funds: clear bank transfer records and account flows can make recovery more realistic. Scope of accomplices: if introducers, recruiters, or account holders were involved, it may be possible to pursue claims against those whose assets can be identified. Timing of response: the earlier the response, the more legal options may remain before the perpetrator disappears or disposes of assets. In unlisted stock investment fraud cases, the question is not only whether a criminal complaint can be filed. It is equally important to determine who should be targeted, what assets may be preserved, and which legal procedures should be pursued first. Review by DECENT Law Firm’s Criminal Defense and Fraud Response Team Unlisted stock investment fraud cases require a comprehensive legal review. The key issues include whether fraud can be established, whether accomplices can be identified, whether assets can be preserved, and how criminal and civil procedures should be coordinated. DECENT Law Firm’s criminal defense and fraud response team has handled unlisted stock investment fraud cases from the criminal complaint stage through asset preservation and recovery strategy. If your investment has not been returned, or if the person in charge has stopped responding, it is important to review your situation before more time passes. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.
2026-06-02
