Press Coverage

A house teacher who was accused of child abuse for raising her voice and admonishing students during the dormitory guidance process was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict A, a woman in her 50s who was sent on charges of violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes on the 10th of last month. Ms. A worked at a middle school dormitory in North Chungcheong Province last year and asked students, "Why don't you clean it?" He was suspected of emotional abuse by making remarks such as "Don't you think" and "Think about it before you live". He was also accused of putting psychological pressure on students who returned home late at night, such as blocking their entrance and not letting them sleep. Mr. A completely denied the allegations. At that time, there were repeated situations where students did not follow the rules of life, such as returning late at night, so we provided guidance to correct this, and argued that there was no intention of abuse at all, as their voices were temporarily raised in a situation where their condition was not good at the time. The prosecution found that Mr. A's charges were not recognized. The prosecution judged that emotional abuse under the Child Welfare Act refers to an act that reaches the level of harming a child's mental health or normal development, and that it is difficult to admit it simply because of a simple admonition or increased vocalization. In addition, the illegality of the act explained that the relationship between the actor and the child, the situation at the time of the act, repetition, and changes in the victim's condition, etc., said. "Child abuse and discipline for educational purposes must be distinguished," said lawyer Nam Sang-gwan of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A. “This case was a one-time act within the scope of routine discipline, and we were able to receive an acquittal by focusing on the fact that violence or repetition was not recognized,” he explained. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] “He just gave me a loud admonition in the dormitory.” The housemaster who was reported for child abuse was cleared of charges (link)

[Ulsan District Court] The attending physician acknowledged negligence in diagnosis. Although the patient with a duodenal ulcer had symptoms that suggested the possibility of perforation, the hospital failed to conduct additional tests and provide treatment, leading to the death of the patient. Ulsan District Court Judge Woo Jung-min acknowledged 60% of the defendants' responsibility in the lawsuit (2024 Gadan 105323) filed by the husband and two children of Patient A (58 years old at the time) in Chungju City against Hospital B in Chungju and the head of internal medicine at Hospital B, who was the attending physician, demanding compensation for damages on April 10, saying, "The attending physician should stand in solidarity with Hospital B and pay a total of 156 million won to the plaintiffs." ruled. Hospital B was declared bankrupt in September 2024, and the plaintiffs' claims for damages against Hospital B were confirmed as bankruptcy claims. On September 18, 2023, A visited the internal medicine department of Hospital B with symptoms such as abdominal pain and vomiting, was diagnosed with gastroenteritis and colitis, and was hospitalized for treatment. However, his symptoms worsened and he was transferred to another hospital on September 26, where he was diagnosed with acute peritonitis due to a perforated duodenal ulcer and underwent surgery, but ultimately died. Judge Woo acknowledged the attending physician's diagnostic negligence. Judge Woo said, "Although perforation was not confirmed in the endoscopy performed by the attending physician on September 25, 2023, if a duodenal ulcer accompanied by severe bleeding was observed and abdominal pain continued to be complained afterward, there is room for suspicion of duodenal ulcer perforation. Even if there was no perforation, a nasogastric tube should have been inserted to check for bleeding or a computed tomography scan to check for active bleeding and necessary treatment should have been considered. However, the attending physician should have checked the presence of active bleeding the next day. He pointed out that "only symptomatic treatment such as administration of antipyretics and dopamine was administered until 18:00," and that "although the attending physician was prescribing peptic ulcer treatment to A after the endoscopy, symptoms such as decreased blood pressure, increased pulse, and oliguria were observed in A around 14:40 on September 26, 2023, and anuria was confirmed at around 15:00 after insertion of an indwelling urinary catheter, multiple organ failure. “Although septic shock was suspected and it was very urgent and important to determine the cause, the medical records submitted by the defendant hospital do not confirm the tests or diagnosis performed by the attending physician to determine the cause.” Judge Woo also pointed out, "A's condition deteriorated rapidly between September 25 and 26, 2023, and the expert judge judged that the prognosis could have been different if the attending physician had made an appropriate diagnosis and treatment before A fell into multiple organ failure and septic shock, or if A had been immediately transferred for treatment if treatment at the defendant hospital was judged to be impossible," and "A's prognosis could have been different after the attending physician performed an endoscopy." “It can be acknowledged that A failed to provide appropriate treatment to A due to negligence in diagnosing the condition, leading to A’s death from peritonitis and multiple organ failure due to perforation of the duodenum.” Judge Woo stated, however, that the defendant's medical staff failed to diagnose duodenal perforation, peritonitis, and multiple organ failure in a timely manner, and as a result, A died without receiving proper treatment. However, the defendant's medical staff also performed abdominal radiography and endoscopy in response to A's complaints of abdominal pain, and the results showed no findings suspicious for perforation. Basic treatment according to A's symptoms was continued, and the causes of abdominal pain were diverse, so perforation or peritonitis was diagnosed when a duodenal ulcer was diagnosed. Considering that there may have been some difficulties, the defendants' liability was limited to 60%. Daeryun Law Firm represented the plaintiffs. For the full text of the ruling, please refer to the Ulsan District Court website. Legal Times Reporter Kim Deok-seong (dsconf@legaltimes.co.kr)[View full article] [Medical] “Patient dies due to failure to take appropriate measures despite symptoms of suspected duodenal perforation… 60% of hospital responsibility” (link)

With the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently launching the online Customs Refund Portal (CAPE) and the refund process worth about KRW 244 trillion (USD 166 billion) in full swing, a seminar will be held to diagnose changes in the global trade environment and strengthen the practical response capabilities of foreign companies. Daeryun Law Firm, together with the Korea Foreign Companies Association (KOFA), will hold a conference room at the Daeryun main office in Park One, Yeouido, Seoul at 3 p.m. on the 7th of next month. It was announced on the 22nd that it would hold a ‘US tariff refund and trade risk response seminar for foreign companies’. Any foreign company executives or managers from related departments such as HR, legal affairs, finance, purchasing, SCM, and logistics can attend the seminar. Applications for attendance and detailed curriculum can be found on the Daeryun Law Firm website. This seminar goes beyond providing guidance on the refund application process and is designed to help build preemptive governance to respond to complex legal and contractual issues that may arise after refunds and trade pressure from the United States. At the seminar, Daeryun experts with expertise in customs and global corporate law will appear as presenters. The seminar will be held in a total of two sessions, and in the first part, customs expert Jae-ho Myung will present on the topic of ‘U.S. IEEPA tariff refund system and latest practical trends.’ Commissioner Myeong is an expert who has overseen trade review and FTA consulting at major companies such as Hyundai Express and Korea Origin Information Service. It presents strategies to respond to administrative difficulties and customs screening that companies may face during the refund process. In Part 2, foreign attorney Dong-Hoo Son (USA) will present on the topic ‘Issues after refund: Official importer structure, refund attribution, and subsequent trade risks.’ Attorney Son is an investment and corporate law expert who has successfully led a number of cross-border projects, including consulting on global pharmaceutical companies' entry into the U.S. market. He explains that the opening of CBP's portal is a practical follow-up to the U.S. Federal Court's unconstitutional ruling in February, and presents scenarios that foreign companies may experience. Specifically, we plan to deal in depth with practical sensitive issues such as the step-by-step application scope of the CAPE refund system, response to refund settlement disputes between headquarters and corporations, and follow-up response directions for CAPE exclusion cases. Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, CEO of CBP, said, “With the operation of CBP’s portal, a practical path has been opened for importers who paid the so-called Trump tariffs to receive refunds.” “The goal is to ensure logical consistency,” he emphasized. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Newspaper - Daeryun·KOFA to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ on the 7th of next month (Go here) Edaily - Daeryun to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Seminar’ with KOFA on the 7th of next month (Go here) Beyond Post - Daeryun and KOFA hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ (Go here)

Lawyer Beomsu Yoon, Daeryun Law Firm In the past, many local governments continued the practice of outsourcing all work to brokers during the process of introducing foreign seasonal workers due to language barriers, complicated administrative procedures, and lack of manpower. This is why the Ministry of Justice began a large-scale inspection of businesses introducing seasonal workers for about three months starting this month. This inspection is targeting 27 cities and counties across the country that have received more than 100 seasonal workers or have caused social controversy in the past due to issues related to seasonal workers. If a violation is discovered or a request for correction such as accommodation improvement is not complied with, special attention is needed from each local government as they may be excluded from future seasonal worker assignments. In particular, they must face the fact that the weight of legal responsibility is different from before. Article 94, Paragraph 11-2 of the revised Immigration Control Act, which came into effect on January 23, strictly prohibits the act of receiving money or valuables by intervening in the selection, placement, or recruitment of seasonal workers, and stipulates that violations will result in imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million won. This means that the secret link between 'local government-private broker-farm owner', which was tolerated in the past for administrative convenience, is now treated as a serious crime in which local government officials and farm owners can be implicated as accomplices. So how should local governments defend against such judicial risks and the possibility of administrative sanctions? The key is the directization of administration and the establishment of a specific ‘compliance (compliance) system’. Like the Geochang-gun model in South Gyeongsang Province, the county office should directly carry out visa acquisition and administrative procedures that previously depended on brokers, and directly select workers through local interviews, thereby completely blocking any room for private intervention. In addition, a specific manual is needed to prevent and manage human trafficking crimes, such as passport confiscation or wage theft, at the local government level. When concluding a labor contract between a farm and a worker, the local government must clearly announce the prohibition on confiscation of ID cards and bank accounts and require a pledge to this effect. Furthermore, dedicated personnel should be deployed within local governments to regularly cross-verify farmers' wage payment details and living conditions, including accommodations, in accordance with the Ministry of Justice's inspection standards, and establish communication channels to respond immediately when problems arise. Through this, blocking illegal elements early and proving that the management and supervision system that complies with legal standards is functioning properly will be a key strategy to safely protect seasonal worker quotas for local agricultural and fisheries. ● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this paper. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Knife drawn on ‘labor exploitation of seasonal workers’… Local government risk defense strategy (link)

With the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recently launching the online Customs Refund Portal (CAPE) and the refund process worth about KRW 244 trillion (USD 166 billion) in full swing, a seminar will be held to diagnose changes in the global trade environment and strengthen the practical response capabilities of foreign companies. Daeryun Law Firm, together with the Korea Foreign Companies Association (KOFA), will hold a conference room at the Daeryun main office in Park One, Yeouido, Seoul at 3 p.m. on the 7th of next month. It was announced on the 22nd that it would hold a ‘US tariff refund and trade risk response seminar for foreign companies’. Any foreign company executives or managers from related departments such as HR, legal affairs, finance, purchasing, SCM, and logistics can attend the seminar. Applications for attendance and detailed curriculum can be found on the Daeryun Law Firm website. This seminar goes beyond providing guidance on the refund application process and is designed to help build preemptive governance to respond to complex legal and contractual issues that may arise after refunds and trade pressure from the United States. At the seminar, Daeryun experts with expertise in customs and global corporate law will appear as presenters. The seminar will be held in a total of two sessions, and in the first part, customs expert Jae-ho Myung will present on the topic of ‘U.S. IEEPA tariff refund system and latest practical trends.’ Commissioner Myeong is an expert who has overseen trade review and FTA consulting at major companies such as Hyundai Express and Korea Origin Information Service. It presents strategies to respond to administrative difficulties and customs screening that companies may face during the refund process. In Part 2, foreign attorney Dong-Hoo Son (USA) will present on the topic ‘Issues after refund: Official importer structure, refund attribution, and subsequent trade risks.’ Attorney Son is an investment and corporate law expert who has successfully led a number of cross-border projects, including consulting on global pharmaceutical companies' entry into the U.S. market. He explains that the opening of CBP's portal is a practical follow-up to the U.S. Federal Court's unconstitutional ruling in February, and presents scenarios that foreign companies may experience. Specifically, we plan to deal in depth with practical sensitive issues such as the step-by-step application scope of the CAPE refund system, response to refund settlement disputes between headquarters and corporations, and follow-up response directions for CAPE exclusion cases. Daeryun Kim Kuk-il, CEO of CBP, said, “With the operation of CBP’s portal, a practical path has been opened for importers who paid the so-called Trump tariffs to receive refunds.” “The goal is to ensure logical consistency,” he emphasized. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Seoul Newspaper - Daeryun·KOFA to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ on the 7th of next month (Go here) Edaily - Daeryun to hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Seminar’ with KOFA on the 7th of next month (Go here) Beyond Post - Daeryun and KOFA hold ‘US Tariff Refund and Trade Risk Response Seminar’ (Go here)

The debate surrounding lowering the age of Chobeop Boys is always hot. Whenever a case of a criminal minor who committed a violent crime is reported, the criticism that “they are not punished because they are a juvenile under the law” is repeated. In the current legal system, a juvenile under the criminal law refers to a criminal minor between the ages of 10 and 14 who has committed an act that violates criminal laws. Although they are not subject to criminal punishment, such as imprisonment or fines, they are subject to protective measures under the Juvenile Act. Protective measures do not stop at the level of simple warnings or warnings, but a total of 10 measures are set, including △ entrustment to guardian supervision △ order to attend classes △ community service order △ probation (short-term, long-term) △ entrustment to a child welfare facility △ entrustment to a medical rehabilitation juvenile center △ transfer to a juvenile facility (within 1 month, short-term, long-term). Its intensity can never be considered light. In particular, transfer to a juvenile detention center is a measure of confinement and living in a facility for a certain period of time, which has a significant impact on the person involved in that their physical freedom is substantially restricted. Nevertheless, the biggest reason why the perception that ‘punishment is weak’ is formed is the difference in the nature of criminal punishment and protective measures. While criminal punishment has the nature of retribution and sanctions, protective measures aim at rehabilitation and resocialization. This is because the purpose of the Juvenile Act itself is to “take necessary measures, such as protective measures to adjust the environment and correct the behavior of anti-social boys, and help the healthy growth of boys.” In other words, society is demanding increasingly stronger punishment, but the law maintains a framework centered on reform, so the gap is the essence of the conflict surrounding the juvenile juvenile system. However, many of the juvenile juvenile cases occur due to complex factors such as problems in the home environment, neglect, and school maladjustment. The lowering of the minimum age for application of the Juvenile Act can be understood in this context. As the age of juvenile delinquency is decreasing and the nature of the crime is becoming a social problem in many cases, it is suggested that the state intervene early in the lives of anti-social juveniles. The problem is that this opportunity for reform is not properly utilized. If youth are left without appropriate intervention, they are more likely to commit more serious crimes as adults, ultimately causing greater damage and costs to society as a whole. Looking at some violent crime cases, the need to supplement the system is clearly recognized, and especially in cases where the seriousness and repetitiveness of the crime are clear, a more stringent response is required. However, this does not result in a single solution of ‘lowering the age.’ What is more important is to intervene appropriately at the stage of delinquency to prevent recidivism and to effectively implement a system that increases the possibility of returning to society. The discussion should go beyond emotional arguments and focus on essential areas to increase the effectiveness of protective measures, provide practical support to victims, and strengthen follow-up management to prevent recidivism.[View full article] [Expert Contribution] Debate over lowering the age of boys... Gap between ‘punishment’ and ‘rehabilitation’ (Shortcut)

Promising interest to an acquaintance and stealing the investment money... “Virtual asset company stopped payment” Rebuttal court “There is a high possibility that coins could not be secured due to access blocking measures… It is difficult to determine whether a person committed fraud” A woman who was sent to trial on charges of stealing money by recommending coin investment to an acquaintance was found not guilty. On the 1st, the Daegu District Court found A, a woman in her 60s, not guilty on charges of fraud. In 2023, Ms. A deceived her acquaintance, Mr. B, by telling her that she would receive interest if she invested in virtual assets. He was accused of embezzling 25 million won. Initially, Mr. A received a summary order to pay a fine of 5 million won, but he objected and requested a formal trial. During the trial, Mr. A claimed that he had invested through a normal virtual asset management company, but was unable to give the money to Mr. B because the company suddenly stopped paying principal and interest. In the process, the company refuted that it could not even secure transaction details because it blocked access to the computerized transaction network. The court found Mr. A not guilty. The court said, “It is confirmed that the defendant used some of the money he received for personal purposes,” but added, “However, the defendant attempted to pay coins equivalent to interest, but it appears that access to the app was suddenly blocked and could not be delivered to the victim.” He continued, “Given that the employee of the company also made a statement consistent with this, the defendant received the money believing that the investment would be made normally, but it is highly likely that he was unable to secure the coins due to the company's unilateral access blocking measures.” “It is difficult to conclude that there was deception,” he added. Lawyer Shin Min-soo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “In order to be guilty of fraud, there must be no intention or ability to repay the money from the beginning.” He added, “Through the statement of the company employee, etc., we were able to obtain a not guilty verdict by objectively proving that Mr. A was only a victim due to the blocking of the transaction network and that there was no intention of defrauding him.” whyjay@sportsseoul.comReporter Shin Jae-yu[View full article] A man in his 60s who stole investment funds using coin investment bait... Law: “Investment company blocked access” Not guilty (Shortcut)

[Interview] Lee Tae-seung, lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, "No wearing of election campaign props or taking photos of ballot papers." As the 9th national simultaneous local election approaches in about 40 days, voters are required to be careful about their daily election activities. It is pointed out that in this election, regulations related to deepfake content using artificial intelligence (AI) technology will be strengthened, and indiscriminate information sharing may lead to legal risks. According to the legal community on the 21st, candidate registration for this local election will begin on the 21st after candidate registration from May 14th to 15th. Advance voting will be held on May 29-30, and main voting will be held on June 3. As the election schedule is in full swing, the proportion of reports received by the National Election Commission related to posts by ordinary citizens or messages in group chat rooms is maintained. Attorney Taeseung Lee of the Daeryun Law Firm said, “The Public Official Election Act regulates the behavior of not only candidates but also ordinary voters,” and added, “Manipulated content such as deepfakes spread quickly, so the act of dissemination itself can directly lead to serious legal problems.” The most important thing voters should be careful about is the sharing of deepfake videos and synthetic voices. Producing, editing, and distributing deepfake content for election campaign purposes is prohibited from 90 days before election day until election day. If you do not indicate that it is virtual information or spread fabricated content as if it were fact, you may be punished for publishing false information or defamation. There are also restrictions on daily SNS activities. It is possible to post support for or opposition to a specific candidate on social media, but sending mass messages using an automatic program is illegal. You should also be careful about repeatedly posting promotional messages in chat rooms organized for a specific candidate or political party. The use of election campaign props and behavior in polling places are also subject to regulation. Ordinary voters who are not registered as election officials cannot wear election campaign props such as shoulder belts, identical clothing, or pickets. On the day of voting, taking photos outside the polling place is allowed, but taking photos of ballots inside the polling place and posting them on social media is prohibited. If you damage election posters or banners, you may be punished by imprisonment for up to two years or by a fine of up to 4 million won. Attorney Lee said, "When notified of a possible violation, it is important to preserve the data and receive expert assistance rather than arbitrarily deleting the post," and added, "During election season, even short expressions can become legal issues, so prior advice is necessary." Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] Local election D-40, deepfake 'click' warning... Voters will also be punished if they share (link)

Recently, a video of a so-called 'Mom's Touch customer' who was refused a soda refill at a fast food restaurant, assaulting the face of an employee and causing a disturbance, has spread, causing public outrage. As the controversy grew, Mom's Touch headquarters issued a statement on the 20th, saying, "The incident occurred in October of last year and is currently under police investigation," and added, "To protect the rights and interests of franchise owners and employees, we will file civil and criminal charges and compensate for damages at the headquarters level. "We will provide all legal support," he said, predicting a strong response. While excessive abuse of power and acts of violence toward workers in the service industry continue, there are growing voices calling for this incident to be treated as a serious criminal act beyond a simple incident. In relation to this, lawyer Daeryun Jeong-jun of the law firm said, "The perpetrator's actions are a serious matter that goes beyond simple assault and can overlap with multiple criminal crimes." He added, "Both the victim and the business owner must take decisive legal action by promptly securing evidence. “Second damage can be prevented,” he emphasized. The following is a Q&A with Attorney Jeong regarding the legal issues in this case. -According to the video, the customer punched the employee in the face, followed him to an employee-only space, and committed violence. In this case, what charges are applied to the perpetrator, and is there a possibility of imprisonment? ▲As direct physical force was used on the body of another person, assault is basically established under criminal law. If the victim submits a medical certificate stating that he or she needs physical or mental treatment, such as bruises or post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of this incident, he or she may be subject to a much more severe crime of bodily harm and may be imprisoned for up to 7 years, suspended for up to 10 years, or fined up to 10 million won. In the case of 'substantive concurrent offenders' who commit multiple crimes at the same time, aggravated punishment is imposed, so the possibility of a prison sentence cannot be ruled out. - Even if there is no physical violence like in this case, there are customers who hurl harsh profanity or insulting language at part-time workers at restaurants or cafes. Is verbal violence without physical contact legally punishable? ▲ Even if there is no physical contact, it is fully subject to criminal punishment. If you hurled severe profanity or ridicule at a specific employee in a public place with other customers, the performance and specificity are recognized and you can be sued for insult. In addition, if a person shouts and makes the store atmosphere unpleasant, making it impossible to accept orders or operate the store, this can also be punished as obstruction of business. - When assaulted while defenseless, a part-time worker may instinctively swing his arms or push the assailant. In this case, to what extent is the victim's self-defense legally recognized? ▲In practice, there are quite a few cases where two parties are unfairly booked together for assault. Because simple assault is a 'crime of impunity without punishment' that cannot be punished if the victim does not want to be punished, perpetrators often take advantage of this and file countersuits to force them to reach a settlement. The court tends to apply the requirements for recognition of self-defense relatively strictly. Defensive actions, such as passively pushing away to escape the other person's violence, are recognized as resistance, but there is a risk that an active counterattack due to intensified emotions or a counterattack that crosses the line may be treated as a two-sided assault. Therefore, it is important to legally explain from the initial investigation stage through objective evidence such as CCTV that it was an inevitable 'passive resistance' that occurred during the defense process. - Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers' obligations to protect workers from verbal abuse or assault by customers have been strengthened. The head office also announced legal support, but what measures should the head office take for the affected employees? ▲According to Article 41 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, also known as the Emotional Workers Protection Act, employers must immediately temporarily suspend the worker's work and provide sufficient rest when a customer's verbal abuse or assault occurs. In addition, there is a legal obligation to provide psychological counseling when necessary and to actively assist injured workers when they take legal action, such as filing a complaint or filing a complaint against the perpetrator. If the business owner forces an apology from the affected employee to alleviate the situation or neglects to implement these protective measures, the business owner may also be subject to a fine of up to 10 million won. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Mom's Touch Jinsangnyeo store is in trouble... The level of punishment for the perpetrator of ‘emotional worker assault’ (link)

Recently, the Ministry of Employment and Labor announced the 2026 basic plan to investigate illegal receipt of employment insurance and began a large-scale special inspection on illegal receipt of unemployment benefits. In the past, if you only returned the amount you received illegally, you might be treated leniently or passed over quietly, but now the situation has completely changed. When caught, it has become difficult to avoid not only punitive additional collection of up to five times the amount of illegal benefits, but also heavy criminal punishment. Due to a moment of wrong judgment, they were left with a huge debt and faced an irreversible crisis. According to Article 116 of the current Employment Insurance Act, a person who receives unemployment benefits by lying or other illegal means is subject to imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million won. If a crime is committed in collusion with a business owner, the offender will be punished with imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won. Hiding the fact of re-employment after leaving the company or income from part-time work, as well as false proof of job-seeking activities are all clearly illegal, and depending on the intentionality of the case and the scale of the damage, the possibility of even being charged with fraud and being sentenced to prison cannot be ruled out. A clear defense strategy from the early stage of the investigation is essential to prevent criminal punishment and excessive punitive recovery. Bluntly denying or making excuses for the charges will only be seen as an attempt to conceal the crime from investigative agencies and provide an excuse for aggravated punishment. Rather, you must acknowledge the facts, actively cooperate with the investigation, and objectively prove that there was no malicious intent to defraud by explaining that the act was accidental and unavoidable. In addition, promptly returning the full amount of illegally received funds and showing a sincere attitude of remorse are key requirements for eliciting leniency. No matter how severe the punishment is expected, going through this systematic explanation process can prevent the worst outcome. In fact, one case in which the author personally acted as the defense attorney and led to a non-indictment is a representative example. Client A received a total of 12 million won in unemployment benefits over 6 months. However, even though he was re-employed only two months after leaving the company, he submitted a false unemployment certificate to the employment center, and the approximately 8.5 million won he received after re-employment was caught as illegal, putting him at risk of heavy criminal punishment. The author focused on proving that Mr. A did not have malicious and deliberate intent to defraud. The extenuating circumstances, including the health difficulties and extreme economic hardship that Mr. A was experiencing at the time, were summarized as objective data and submitted to the investigative agency. In addition, Mr. A strongly expressed that he was deeply reflecting on all of his crimes and was actively cooperating with the investigation, and most importantly, he promptly and voluntarily returned the entire amount of money he had illegally received. Accordingly, the prosecution accepted the defense's arguments, including Mr. A's sincere attitude of remorse and the fact that the full amount of benefits was returned, and decided not to indict. Mr. A was able to safely avoid imprisonment and return to his daily life. In cases of illegal receipt of unemployment benefits, the results are sharply different depending on how the initial golden time before attendance at the Labor Office and police investigation is spent. Rather than hastily reacting out of embarrassment, the wisest solution to get out of a crisis is to collect fact-based evidence and systematically explain it with the help of a legal expert with extensive experience in criminal cases from the beginning of the case. Lawyer Wooyeonjin Woo of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited)[View full article] [Column] Amid the strengthening of crackdowns on illegal receipt of unemployment benefits, the importance of systematic explanation (link)