Press Coverage

The criminal deposit system means that if the perpetrator fails to reach an agreement with the victim, he or she deposits money necessary to restore the victim's rights in the name of settlement money. This system has been considered as a mitigating factor in various criminal cases, including sex crimes. This is clearly revealed in statistical data. According to KBS's analysis of 988 rulings to mark the first anniversary of the implementation of special provisions for criminal deposit in 2023, among 519 sex crime rulings, 365 (70.3%) of the rulings considered the defendant's unilateral deposit as an advantageous factor in sentencing. On the other hand, there were only 13 cases (2.5%) of judgments in which the victim's situation, such as the victim's intention to be severely punished, was not reflected at all in the sentence. In fact, the majority of defendants turn to the criminal deposit system when they fail to reach an agreement with the victim. The deposit system is used as a trick to lower the level of punishment for perpetrators, regardless of the victim's intention to be severely punished. In particular, cases of abuse have continued to occur, such as so-called 'surprise deposit', in which money is deposited near the time of sentencing so that the court cannot confirm the victim's intention, and 'scam deposit', in which a defendant who has received a reduced sentence retrieves the deposit without the victim's knowledge. Accordingly, voices have grown within and outside the legal profession that the deposit system must be fundamentally improved. Due to these problems, the revised Criminal Procedure Act and Deposit Act have been implemented since this year. Following the revision of the law, it became impossible to commute sentences for tricks that exploit the criminal deposit system. In particular, in the case of 'surprise deposit', Article 294-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act (money deposit and hearing opinions of victims, etc.) was newly established to make it mandatory for the court to hear the victim's opinion. In addition, a new regulation was established to prevent the perpetrator from recovering the deposit without the victim's knowledge after receiving a reduced sentence. According to Article 9-2 (Restrictions on Recovery of Deposits) of the Deposit Act, if the victim refuses to receive the deposit or agrees to the recovery, recovery of the deposit is impossible, except in cases where a decision not to indict or acquittal is made. Sentencing standards are also changing in line with these changes. The Supreme Court Sentencing Committee held its 137th meeting last March and decided to revise sentencing standards for crimes such as sex crimes. In the case of sex crimes, while revising the detailed sentencing standards, the phrase 'including deposit' was deleted from the reasons for consideration in the overall sex crime sentencing standards. Sentencing standards are a type of guideline that judges refer to when setting sentences and do not necessarily have to be followed, but if a sentence is to deviate from the standards, a separate reason must be written in the sentence. This is meaningful in that it takes into account criticism that deposit is only a means of recovering damages, but the phrase 'including deposit' may lead to a misconception that deposit alone is a natural mitigating factor. So how should we respond to the changed deposit system? First, if you are a victim, we recommend that you write and submit a petition for strict punishment in order to prevent the offender from receiving an unfair sentence reduction. Additionally, in addition to criminal punishment, you can claim financial compensation for mental and physical damage through a civil lawsuit, so it would be a good idea to consult with an expert and exercise your rights as a victim. If you are a perpetrator, it has become difficult to expect a reduction in sentence by relying on the bond system. If the deposit is made without reflecting the victim's wishes, there is an increased possibility that it will have a negative impact on the outcome of the case. However, as agreement with the victim is the most important factor in sentencing, it can be said that it is important to obtain professional assistance and produce meaningful results rather than reacting haphazardly. Small and Medium Business Team[View full article] Revised sex crime deposit system, trick aimed at reducing sentences becomes impossible... How to respond? (Shortcut)

The Seoul Citizens' Audit Ombudsman Committee announced on the 15th that it has appointed Lee Ji-won, senior attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) and Choi Han-don, representative attorney at Pyeongsan Law Firm (Limited), as new advisory members of the legal advisory group. The committee's legal advisory group reviews legal issues in the committee's work from various angles and plays the role of supporting legal expertise. The members are lawyers, law professors, and legal experts with a doctorate in law or higher, and the mayor is a member of the legal advisory group. Appointed. The advisory group has provided legal advice on a total of 320 cases since its launch in July 2022 until the end of last month, and with this appointment, the total number of advisory members has increased to 50. The new advisory members are legal professionals with extensive practical and trial experience in the areas of major local administration issues such as real estate, urban administration, and the environment, and are expected to enhance expertise and strengthen the advisory system. Seo Young-deuk, head of the legal advisory group of the Citizens Audit Ombudsman Committee, said “As an advisory body that looks at problems from the citizens’ perspective and suggests solutions, we will strive to provide practical help to citizens’ grievances,” he said. Bo-Ram Yoon (bryoon@yna.co.kr)[View full article] Yonhap News - Seoul Citizens' Ombudsman Commission appoints two new legal advisors... Total 50 people (link) News 1 - Seoul Citizens Audit Ombudsman Commission appoints 2 new legal advisors (link)

Among newlyweds who recently got married, there is a noticeable phenomenon of postponing marriage registration for a certain period of time. In the background, there are practical reasons such as housing subscription, real estate-related systems, and loan conditions. If you start a practical married life without registering your marriage, but do not register your marriage, it is legally considered a 'common-law marriage'. Common-law marriage refers to a state in which there is an intention to marry between the parties and the reality of the couple's joint life is objectively recognized, but the marriage has not been registered. We often receive questions about whether legal protection can be received even in a state of common-law marriage. To conclude, common-law marriages can also be protected by law. However, it is difficult to expect the same level of protection as legal marriage. For example, even if a common-law marriage is established, there is no change in the family relationship register, and since no legal kinship relationship is formed, the common-law marriage spouse is not recognized as having inheritance rights. A common-law marriage can be dissolved by the will of one party, but if the common-law marriage is unilaterally terminated without justifiable reasons, that party may be liable for damages to the other party. In this case, 'legitimate reasons' refer to cases where there is a significant violation of the obligations premised on marital life, such as cohabitation, support, cooperation, and chastity, and cheating is a representative example. In addition, the Supreme Court's established position is that in a common-law marriage, damages can be claimed from the other party who committed the misconduct, not the spouse. Even when the common-law marriage is dissolved, a claim for property division is possible, just like in a legal marriage. However, in order to exercise your right, you must first prove that you were in a common-law marriage relationship by meeting the subjective and objective requirements of a common-law marriage. In particular, the key to dividing property depends on how each person's contribution is evaluated, and the period of marriage is very important in calculating contribution. In the case of a wedding, it is easy to use that point as the standard, but in the case of a common-law marriage that only started cohabitation without a wedding, it is necessary to comprehensively assert and prove the timing of cohabitation, whether joint economic activities, and the perception of those around them. In short, common-law marriage relationships are also subject to protection by law, but unlike legal marriage, institutional and substantive restrictions clearly exist. To avoid falling into a blind spot of the law just because of a common-law marriage, it is advisable to check the legal stability appropriate for each individual's situation and reduce risks in advance.[View full article] [Contribution] Before marriage registration, how far is the right to a common-law marriage? Legal status and protection (link)

The police decided not to forward a man in his 50s, who was booked on charges of fraud after borrowing money from acquaintances and disappearing without paying back, due to his efforts to repay the debt. According to the legal community on the 14th, the Western Police Station in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, decided not to forward Mr. A, a man in his 50s, who was booked on charges of fraud on the 3rd of last month. Mr. A was accused of borrowing about 900 million won from two acquaintances for two years starting in 2015 for the purpose of running a business, and then disappearing without paying it all back. At the police, Mr. A denied the charges, saying he had no intention to defraud. He wrote an IOU and repaid the debt by paying principal and interest, but as his health deteriorated, he inevitably reached a situation where he could no longer repay the debt. Mr. A also claimed that he had no intention of deceiving his financial status because his acquaintances, with whom he had maintained close relationships for a long time, were fully aware of his financial situation. The police confirmed that Mr. A had paid interest several times to his acquaintances who were creditors and that he had actually used the borrowed funds for business operating expenses, and determined that Mr. A was not guilty of fraud. Also, considering the relationship between Mr. A and his acquaintances, it was difficult to see that Mr. A deceived his acquaintances even though he did not have the ability or intention to repay. Attorney Kim Young-min of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “If he had the intention and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, even if he failed to repay, it is only a civil default and does not constitute a crime of fraud. Thanks to Mr. A, he emphasized the fact that he was paying the principal and interest for the borrowed money and proved his intention to repay. “I thought there were no charges,” he explained. Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] A person in his 50s accused of fraud for ‘borrowing 900 million won and disappearing’ will not be transferred… Efforts to repay, including interest remittance (link)

Daeryun Law Firm will open a branch office in New York, USA, as early as next month. According to the legal community on the 14th, Daeryun has rented an office in the One World Trade Center (1WTC) building located in Manhattan, New York, and is carrying out final work before opening, including renovating the interior, providing office furniture, and selecting and training permanent employees. We plan to open the office and begin operations as early as June, or at the latest, by August. The office size is 347 pyeong (approximately 1,147 m2). 1WTC is a new building built on the site where the World Trade Center collapsed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and is the tallest skyscraper in the United States. Several global companies are located here, including financial services companies Ameriprise Financial and Carta, media group Condé Nast, large real estate company Dust Organization, and marketing company Stagwell. This is the first time for a Korean law firm to move into 1WTC. Excluding some mid-sized law firms such as The Kim Law Firm, no law firms have established offices in New York. While major domestic law firms have opened branch offices mainly in Asia and Europe, Daeryun chose the United States, the center of global trade, as its first overseas expansion destination. Daeryun Park said, “We want to jump into the advanced legal market and ultimately introduce an advanced legal system to Korea,” and explained, “We believe that only by having advanced services and a customer-oriented mind can we survive on the international stage and secure competitiveness in the legal market.” The branch office will be located in the United States. The number of people is undecided. First, we hired 2 to 3 people and planned to increase them according to the speed of business expansion. Daeryun's U.S. office has all companies and individuals living in the U.S. as potential customers, not just Korean companies operating in the U.S. or Koreans who have immigrated to the U.S. For this reason, there are plans to directly hire a local lawyer. Currently, Daeryun's U.S. attorney includes attorney Mia Kim (Washington, DC). Daeryun recently signed a strategic business agreement (MOU) with Korini, a comprehensive U.S. real estate platform, paving the way for its entry into the United States. Korini, headquartered in New York, is a company that provides comprehensive consulting ranging from real estate leasing and sales to corporate asset management and overseas expansion. Reporter Jang Seo-woo (suwu@hankyung.com)[View full article] [Exclusive] Daeryun Law Firm stakes in New York… 350 pyeong office to be built (link)

(Tax and Finance News = Reporter Ko Seung-ju) Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 13th that it has recruited representative attorney Cho Young-sam (Training Institute 24th class) to its general litigation and arbitration group. Attorney Cho will reside at the Seoul Central (Seocho) branch office and handle civil cases nationwide. Attorney Cho graduated from Seoul National University Law School in 1985, passed the bar exam in 1992, and served as a judge at the Miryang Branch of the Changwon District Court and the Chuncheon District Court, starting with the Changwon District Court in 1995. After retiring as a judge in 2007, he achieved numerous victories and acquittals in major civil, criminal, and administrative cases, including ▲compensation for damages due to liability for defects in royal works, ▲cancellation of administrative dispositions pursuant to national projects, and ▲inducing remand of Supreme Court reversals. In particular, the first Supreme Court precedent was drawn that even if the grave base right is recognized due to the long-term existence of the grave, the landowner can demand land use fees from the grave base right holder. He has participated in various public committee activities, including as an advisor to the Korea Asset Management Corporation and Gangneung City Hall, the Gangwon-do Police Agency Disciplinary Committee, and various committees of Gangneung City Hall. He also served as a bridge between the local community and the law through lectures on court auctions at the Kwandong University Lifelong Education Center. Attorney Cho said, “Based on the sense of legal balance and ability to judge facts gained through my experience as a judge, I have achieved good results for my clients in several cases. At Daeryun, I will carefully examine the client’s position and do my best to provide a clear answer.” Managing Director Kim Kook-il said, “Attorney Cho has persuasively represented the rights of clients with objective and cool-headed judgment,” and added, “In particular, he is a veteran lawyer who can respond unwaveringly to complex civil litigation, and is expected to further strengthen the substance of Daeryun’s General Litigation and Arbitration Group.”[View full article] Daeryun recruits lawyer Cho Young-sam, a former judge, to the general litigation and arbitration group (link) Sejeong Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm recruits ‘Attorney Cho Young-sam’, a former judge in the General Litigation and Arbitration Group (Go here) Law Leader - Daeryun Law Firm's General Litigation and Arbitration Group recruits former judge Cho Young-sam (link) International News - Daeryun Law Firm recruits former judge Cho Young-sam... Strengthening civil litigation and arbitration capabilities (Go here)

Petitioner: “I felt humiliated by repeated sexual harassment.” “No one could hear what I said in the same space.” A non-commissioned officer who was sent on charges of making sexual harassment and insulting remarks to his successor was cleared by the prosecution. The Army Prosecutor's Office decided not to indict Mr. A, a man in his 30s who was accused of insulting in March. Mr. A was accused of sexually insulting his successor, Mr. B, in his unit's office in June of last year. He is known to have made sexual jokes while referring to Mr. B's private life on five occasions. Mr. A denied the charges. He emphasized that he only made this joke individually through a messenger and did not make a separate statement in public. The prosecution found that Mr. A was not guilty. The fact that other colleagues who lived together stated that they did not hear Mr. A's remarks became the main basis. The prosecution explained, "Mr. B's claim has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt," and "Even if the nature of performance is acknowledged, considering the level and context of the above remarks, it is difficult to say that it constitutes an insulting remark to the extent of lowering the personal value." Attorney Seo In-ho of Daeryun Law Firm, who served as Mr. A's legal representative, said, "Recognition of the crime of insult is based on the relationship and relationship between the parties." “The principle is that judgment must be made in light of the circumstances, including the context of the statement,” he said. “We have made it clear that although the client’s statement may offend the other person, the purpose is not to inform the majority of this.” Digital Content Team[View full article] “With a woman while on vacation…” The reason why the boss who sexually insulted his successor was ‘not guilty’ (link)

Benchmarking models of global mega law firms such as Baker McKinsey and Milbank. Consulting attorney, litigation management center, special department, and AI-based case analysis. Nationwide integrated response “A law firm trusted by consumers, now a global standard.” Recently, ‘network law firms’ are rapidly expanding in the law firm industry and are becoming a hot topic. A network law firm refers to a structure in which several branch offices (regional offices) are established under one corporation or brand, use a common trademark, and mutually utilize case handling and marketing resources. This concept originally originated from the integrated operating model established by global mega law firms such as Baker McKenzie, White & Case, and Milbank. However, in the process of introducing this structure to Korea, accounting and responsibility between branch offices were separated. There are quite a few cases where it is combined with the ‘separate production system’ method and the original purpose is lost. Law firms that are systematically separated but appear to be networks only on the outside are exposing structural limitations that undermine the consistency and expertise of cases and cause variation and confusion in service quality to customers. Contrary to this trend, Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 13th that it will advance its organizational strategy by introducing ‘Global Mega Law Firm’ as its new slogan. Daeryun's global mega law firm starts from a 'centralized one-firm structure' that manages 43 offices nationwide as one organic organization through an integrated system centered on the main office, rather than independent operation of each branch office. This is not just a simple domestic expansion strategy, but is part of a long-term roadmap to secure competitiveness on the international stage in the future. In fact, Daeryun has benchmarked Baker McKinsey's strategies and manuals to implement litigation quality that meets global standards in which 43 offices operate according to the same standards. This structure is clearly different from network law firms that are similar in appearance only in that it is a system that realizes nationwide integrated management and consistent quality control. Daeryun designed this integrated system so that customers can receive the same quality of legal services no matter which local office they visit. This trust in service consistency and expertise is the core background that led to consumers' choices and became the foundation for Daeryun to grow into one of the top 10 law firms in Korea in a short period of time. The organizational foundation supporting this is also clear. Daeryun handles the entire process, from case consultation to trial response, as a ‘one-team system.’ The initial consultation is conducted by a consulting lawyer with extensive practical experience, and upon request from the customer, direct consultation is also possible with a lawyer specializing in the field or a lawyer with more experience. It is a structure that improves the accuracy of strategy establishment from the beginning of the case. The ‘Litigation Management Headquarters’, launched last month, is an organization that comprehensively controls and manages the entire case progress process, and plays a role in improving the consistency and completeness of the defense strategy. By tracking and coordinating the flow of cases centrally, information disconnections or response deviations between defense teams are minimized. Medium-to-large cases or multi-disciplinary cases involving complex issues are handled by the ‘Special Action Headquarters (Special Department)’. The Special Department is an advanced organization where lawyers specializing in fields such as criminal, civil, and administrative teams form a team and enable rapid and strategic responses to difficult cases. In addition, Daeryun has introduced an AI big data-based case analysis system and is actively utilizing technology in overall case management, such as classifying similar case types, deriving key issues, and analyzing the possibility of judgment. This, combined with Daeryun's unique data assets that have accumulated numerous litigation experiences, boasts precise analysis capabilities that are comparable to those of large global law firms. CEO Kook-il Kim said, “The structure in which national branch offices provide different quality services is the biggest risk from the customer's perspective,” and added, “Daeryun has built a global mega law firm-type structure that can diagnose and allocate cases centered on the main office and perform quality control on a nationwide level.” He continued, “Korea. “The legal community still lacks understanding of the structure of global law firms, and some law firms call themselves a network with two or three branch offices and only online advertisements, and in fact operate in a separate system,” he explained. “Daeryun is the only organization that implements integrated responsibility and expertise, which is fundamentally different from that structure.” CEO Kim also said, “The legal market is evolving along with technology, and developed countries such as the United States and Germany are also reorganizing their systems in line with system changes.” “Daeryun is a new model with an organic system and customer feedback-based legal services that existing large law firms were unable to implement, and we will continue to create an environment where everyone can receive high-quality legal services fairly.” Reporter Park Jae-gwan (paksunbi@fnnews.com)[View full article] Daeryun, building a global mega law firm... Providing the same legal services anywhere in the country (click here)

(Tax and Finance News = Reporter Ko Seung-ju) Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 13th that it conducted a ‘mentoring program’ for about 10 teenagers from Pyeongtaek Middle School on the 7th. The program was designed to provide practical help to middle school students about opportunities and preparation methods for exploring legal careers. The students visited the Pyeongtaek branch office of law firm Daeryun, toured the office, and had a question-and-answer session with current lawyers. Attorney Do Il-seok, who participated as a guidance lawyer, delivered a variety of content, from specifically understanding the legal profession to sharing practical cases and directions for developing capabilities. Students were able to learn legal knowledge and resolve their concerns about going on to higher education through mentor and mentee training. One student who participated in the program said, “This program gave me an opportunity to indirectly learn about the roles of legal professionals such as judges, prosecutors, and lawyers.” Attorney Do Il-seok said, “It was great to be able to provide students with the opportunity to vividly learn and experience practical knowledge beyond theoretical learning.” Kim Kook-il, CEO of Management, said, “Daeryun recently established a public interest corporation, ‘Relationship Law,’ to run public interest activities in earnest,” and added, “We are planning various measures ranging from communication programs such as career experience for youth to legal support for the underprivileged. We ask for your continued interest.” Daeryun plans to continue to carry out various public interest activities for vulnerable groups such as youth, multicultural families, and the disabled.[View full article] Tax and Finance Newspaper - Daeryun, ‘future lawyer’ Pyeongtaek Middle School student-lawyer mentor/mentee (Go here) International News - Daeryun Law Firm successfully completes youth mentoring program... Public interest activities begin in earnest (Go here)

A man in his 30s, the director of a dog kindergarten, who was investigated by the police on charges of abusing a dog and causing blindness due to negligence but lack of evidence of intentional abuse under the Animal Protection Act, was cleared of the charges. According to the police on the 13th, Incheon Western Police Station decided not to send Mr. A, who was accused of assaulting and causing blindness (violation of the Animal Protection Act, etc.) of a dog that the dog owner had left at the dog kindergarten last March. Mr. B, the dog owner, responded to Mr. A, saying, "I was bitten by another dog while walking," but based on the veterinary diagnosis of 'trauma caused by a blunt object', he raised the possibility of abuse and filed a complaint against Mr. A to the police. During the police investigation, Mr. A reportedly stated that Mr. B's dog was only injured in a collision with another dog inside the kindergarten and that there was no abuse, and that he gave the wrong answer because he was unable to determine the exact circumstances at the time of the accident. The police cleared Mr. A, saying, "Although the accident occurred while Mr. A was managing the animal, it is difficult to say that there was abuse based on the evidence obtained such as CCTV." Attorney Shin Yong-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “For a violation of the Animal Protection Act to be applied, ‘intention’ must be proven at the time of inflicting physical pain or mistreating the puppy. Although Mr. A, the director of the dog kindergarten, was negligent in failing to manage the puppy, it was confirmed that he took ‘appropriate measures’ such as having the puppy receive treatment at a veterinary hospital immediately after the accident, so he was acquitted.” Intern reporter Jeong Ye-eun (ye9@kyeonggi.com)[View full article] Gyeonggi Ilbo - Dog goes blind after leaving it at kindergarten... Director ‘not guilty’ on charges of animal abuse (link) Sports Entertainment - Despite the dog's blindness... Director of 'Dog Kindergarten' cleared of animal abuse charges (link)