Press Coverage

Interest in the legal responsibility for the fire at the construction site of a high-end hotel and resort in Gijang-gun, Busan, which killed 6 people and injured 27 people, is growing. In the legal community, there is an analysis that there is a high possibility of legal liability for the construction company that directly managed and supervised the construction site. According to the Busan Police Agency on the 17th, the construction company was responsible for completing the fire at the ‘Banyan Tree Haeundae Busan Hotel & Resort’ in Yeonhwa-ri, Gijang-gun on the 14th by November of last year, but continued construction beyond the deadline. At the time of the fire, 841 workers from 40 subcontractors were carrying out various tasks at the site. Because of this, materials were piled up all over the place. The legal community believes that there is a high possibility that the construction company will be held legally responsible. Attorney Dong-il Park, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, “Currently, both the developer and the construction company are known to be different companies, and it appears that the construction company that directly hired workers and managed and supervised the construction site will not be able to escape responsibility.” Attorney Song Young-in of Compass Law Firm said, “There is a high possibility that the responsibility of the construction company and the contracting or partnering company will be acknowledged,” and “If the construction company does not have a special agreement, the liability may be less than that of the construction company.” The key is whether or not the Act on Punishment of Serious Accidents, etc. (Serious Accident Punishment Act) has been violated. Attorney Choi Jae-won of Siwoo Law Firm analyzed, “We need to look at the outline of the case in detail, but there is a good possibility that the Serious Accident Punishment Act will be applied because six workers died. The most important thing seems to be whether work guidelines and safety management were properly followed.” Another lawyer explained, “The application of the Serious Accident Punishment Act seems unavoidable, but complex legal disputes are expected over who is responsible because the issue of compensation to victims and bereaved families must also be addressed.” There is also controversy over whether the deceased worker should be covered by insurance. Employers who employ workers must subscribe to both employment and industrial accident insurance. Of course, daily workers are also eligible to join. The surviving family of Mr. A (44), who died in the fire, claimed that Mr. A was not insured. However, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service said, "The accident site is covered by industrial accident insurance and employment insurance." Reporter Kim Seong-hyeon (kksh@busan.com) Reporter Yang Bo-won (bogiza@busan.com)[View full article] “The company in charge of construction is responsible for the fire at the site” [Banyan Tree fire] (Shortcut)

A woman who was handed over to the prosecution on charges of contacting her ex-husband through phone calls and messages several times was not indicted. On December 24 last year, the Suncheon Branch of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office ruled that Mr. A, who was suspected of violating the law on the punishment of stalking crimes, was 'not guilty'. Ms. A was accused of contacting her ex-husband, Mr. B, on approximately 30 occasions in September of last year. Ms. A denied the charges. He refuted that Mr. B continued to ask for a lot of money and that he only contacted him to ask the reason for this. He then emphasized that during the process of communicating, Mr. B never expressed his intention to refuse contact. The prosecution determined that Mr. A was not guilty. The prosecution said, "At the time of the crime, it was confirmed that hundreds of messages were exchanged between the two people," and "It cannot be seen that the suspect sent the message unilaterally." He added, "The message only contained information such as methods to solve financial problems, and no expression of intent to cause harm was confirmed." He explained, "The suspect's actions may cause bothersome and unpleasant feelings, but they cannot be seen as actions that cause anxiety or fear." Attorney Sangwan Oh of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) said, "Stalking is causing anxiety or fear through a specific act against the other person's will and without a justifiable reason. There were circumstances to ask Mr. A the reason for Mr. B's request for money." He added, "Mr. B did not answer Mr. A's phone call requesting the money back, but continued to ask for money through messages." He added, "After comprehensively judging these issues, the prosecution determined that Mr. A's actions did not constitute stalking. “I can see it,” he added. Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] “I asked for money,” but when that didn’t work, I reported it as stalking… Jeokbanhajang’s ex-husband (link)

The fiercely contested 53rd Korean Bar Association President election ended on the 20th of last month. Although various agendas were discussed, the biggest topic of this election was network law firms. Although there were detailed differences of opinion on methods, etc., the voices of all candidates were the same: that network law firms should be actively regulated. The author has also received several questions about network law firms from various stakeholders, including lawyers and reporters. At such times, the author would always convey his position, saying, “There is no reason to reject any proposal if the relevant regulation proposal does not go against the Constitution and the values ​​of the free market and contributes to the advancement of the public’s right to know and the expansion and development of the legal market.” However, it is necessary to think deeply about the essence of the regulation proposal mentioned by each candidate. The author believes that the purpose of the regulation is to ‘improve the rights of the people’ and ‘healthy growth of the legal profession.’ It is believed that these regulations were created with the hope that the domestic legal market will become more competitive and that high-quality legal services will be provided to the people. If this is the thinking of the candidates who want to become the leader representing about 35,000 lawyers, our legal community must now come together and take a step forward. In addition to regulating some network law firms that operate illegally, there is a need to pay attention to eradicating the deep-rooted evils in the legal profession for a long time. As one of the evils that must be eliminated from the domestic legal market, the author would like to mention ‘legal brokers.’ The activities of a legal broker usually begin with ‘impersonating an office manager.’ He introduces himself as an office manager, approaches clients and lawyers, and collects a fee in return for arranging cases. Until about 10 years ago, these legal brokers were considered a very serious social problem. Statistics were announced that out of the 10,725 cases of legal corruption that occurred from 2011 to the first half of 2014, 5,353 cases, or nearly half, were civil and criminal broker cases, so there is no need to explain the seriousness of this further. Accordingly, the courts, prosecutors, and lawyer groups formed a task force (TF) to take action to eradicate legal brokers. However, recently, another concept has emerged. These are ‘expert committee members’ and ‘advisory committee members’ who are non-lawyers who were retired police officers. It is known that they mainly play an advisory role in criminal cases. The problem is that some of them not only provide advice but also try to exert influence by unfairly intervening in the investigation process. As legal brokers operate beneath the surface, changing only their names, the public is burdened with the double burden of economic burden and distrust of the judiciary. Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), to which the author belongs, has been carrying out midnight activities to eradicate legal brokers. The goal was to educate internal members about the illegality of legal brokerage and actively encourage reporting. Of course, it is true that the efforts of individual law firms alone have limitations in eradicating the ills that have permeated the entire industry. The good news is that investigative agencies have recently shown a more active willingness to investigate legal brokers. In July of last year, the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office succeeded in detaining and indicting a former police chief and law firm expert on suspicion of collusion with a legal broker. The expert in question is said to have exerted direct and indirect influence on the police investigation team. As such, there are still a lot of issues that need to be resolved in our country's legal profession. I have no doubt that this election for the president of the Bar Association will be a signal of new change. We hope that the new Bar Association president and executive team, who will take office on the 24th of this month, will not only solve new challenges but also make efforts to eliminate existing bad habits to create a healthier legal market. Daeryun is also ready to take the lead more than anyone else. Park Dong-il, representative attorney at Daeryun Law Firm (Limited)[View full article] Network law firms and legal brokers... “Liquidation of legal brokers, the Korean Bar Association must take the lead” (link)

Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), which entered the ‘Top 10 Law Firms’ 9 years after its establishment, held an opening ceremony for its Daejeon branch office at the Science Center located in Yuseong-gu, Daejeon on the 12th and began full-fledged operation. Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) Daejeon Branch Office announced its official start by inviting guests from home and abroad on this day. The event began with an opening speech by CEO Kook-il Kim, followed by a congratulatory message from CEO Park Dong-il, an introduction to the company by Director Lee Ki-jun, an introduction of the AI system and corporate advisory center by Vice President Lee-seon Choi, and a closing speech by Director Jeong-beom Kim. CEO Kook-il Kim said, “Since first opening as ‘Daeryun Law Firm’ in 2016, we have been awarded the title of ‘Top 10 Law Firms with the Shortest Time to Enter the Top 10 in the Domestic Legal Market’. He expressed his ambition by saying, “We will continue to recruit experts in various fields, including business, taxation, and medicine, and promise to become a reliable helper in realizing social justice so that high-quality legal services can be provided anywhere in the country.” Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan) will be able to provide faster and more convenient legal services to customers in the central region through the opening of a branch office in Daejeon. In particular, we plan to strengthen expertise and increase customer satisfaction through AI systems and corporate advisory centers. Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan) operates branch offices in major cities across the country, including its headquarters in Seoul. Additionally, about 100 lawyers and 200 executives and employees are working hard to provide the best legal services to customers. Reporter Kim Mi-young (kmy@dailycc.net)[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) opens Daejeon General Headquarters and strengthens legal services in the central region (Click here)

A driver who hit and killed a pedestrian crossing the road while driving without a license had his sentence reduced to probation in the appeals court. The 2nd Criminal Division of the Suwon District Court sentenced Mr. A, a driver in his 60s, who was put on trial on December 20 last year on charges of violating the Special Act on Traffic Accidents (death), to one year in prison and two years of probation, breaking the two-year prison term in the first trial. Mr. A is due in December 2022 He was suspected of hitting and killing a passerby who was crossing the crosswalk. At that time, it was confirmed that the victim was hit by Mr. A's vehicle, fell to the opposite lane, and was soon struck again by a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The victim suffered serious injuries in this accident and was taken to the hospital, but eventually died. During the trial, Mr. A first admitted that the accident occurred due to his negligence. However, it was emphasized that the victim suffered a second accident when he fell after colliding with his vehicle, and that this second accident appears to have been the direct cause of death. The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to two years in prison. The court said, "The defendant shocked the victim who was crossing the street, causing damage by depriving him of life. We took into account the fact that he had a history of traffic-related crimes, including being punished for drunk driving and unlicensed driving in the past." Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal, and the second trial sentenced Mr. A to probation. The appellate court explained, "The defendant's professional negligence was serious in that he neglected his duty to look ahead and shocked the victim." He then revealed the reason for the sentencing, saying, "The defendant has acknowledged his mistake and is reflecting on it, and has reached an amicable agreement with the victim's family and does not want to be punished." Attorney Park Se-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A, said, "During the trial, it was emphasized that the negligence of the driver of the opposite vehicle that caused the second accident at the time cannot be ignored." said. Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Unlicensed driver who struck a pedestrian crossing the street was sentenced to probation on appeal (link)

Accusations of special assault, violation of the Firearms and Explosives Act, etc. “Long-term dispute, young children were also threatened,” the defendant took into account all circumstances, and the leniency appeal court “maintained the original decision”… Prosecutor's appeal dismissed. A man in his 40s who injured a neighbor by wielding an electric shock gun during an argument over noise between floors of an apartment building was sentenced to probation in the second trial. Suwon District Court's 6-3 Criminal Division (Chief Judges Kim Eun-jeong, Shin Woo-jeong, and Yoo Jae-gwang) dismissed the prosecutor's appeal in the appeal trial against Mr. A, who was indicted in December last year on charges of special assault and violation of the Act on Safety Management of Guns, Swords, Explosives, etc., and upheld the lower court ruling that sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 2 years of probation. In February of the same year, Mr. A was attacked by a neighbor with an electric shock gun in an apartment in Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, in February of the same year. Mr. B, who was in his 50s, was brought to trial on charges of stabbing the neck and face. Mr. A, who lived in the house below Mr. B at the time of the incident, is known to have stated in a police investigation, “I was protesting due to the noise between floors, but I committed the crime because I was harassed by Mr. B’s family by making retaliatory noises.” Mr. A’s lawyer also said in court, “Mr. A was a parent raising a young child, and he was very worried about the safety of his children due to Mr. B’s violent behavior,” and “The electric shock gun was used for self-defense.” He defended the case, saying, “I had it in stock, and I had never used it even during the ongoing conflict with Mr. B.” He continued, “On the day of the incident, Mr. A was with his children, and when he encountered Mr. B as usual, all the anxiety he had felt came out all at once.” He said, “Mr. A has acknowledged his mistakes and is deeply reflecting on them, and has never shown violent tendencies,” and hoped for leniency. The first trial court found Mr. A guilty of assault. However, the suspended sentence was given in consideration of the fact that Mr. A had a conflict with the victim over noise between floors and that crime victim protection measures were in place for Mr. A's children even before the incident occurred. Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed, saying the sentence was light, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. Attorney Park Se-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), Mr. A's legal representative, said, "As the incident occurred during a dispute over noise between floors, there were many legal aspects to consider," and added, "I understand that the first and second trial courts accepted the part in which Mr. A had great fear, which was formed due to conflict and damage accumulated over a long period of time, and the part in which he committed the crime for the safety of his children." Digital News Reporter[View full article] Kukje Newspaper - Man in his 40s who attacked with an ‘electric stun gun’ during a dispute over noise between apartment floors, sentenced to probation on appeal (link) Sports Seoul - A man in his 40s who took out an ‘electric stun gun’ and attacked someone during a fight over noise between apartment floors, was sentenced to probation by the appeals court (link)

At the end of last month, the Constitutional Court issued a notable decision surrounding the medical law. The circumstances are as follows. Medical Corporation A, which operated a psychiatric hospital, submitted an inquiry to the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2021. It was about ‘whether it is possible to establish an oriental medicine department within a psychiatric hospital.’ The Ministry of Health and Welfare responded that it was impossible. The basis was Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Medical Service Act. The clause included the following: ‘Hospitals, dental hospitals, or general hospitals may establish and operate additional oriental medicine departments by hiring oriental doctors.’ However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s position was that psychiatric hospitals not listed here could not establish oriental medicine departments. Establishing oriental medicine departments in mental hospitals was not impossible from the beginning. The Medical Service Act, revised in January 2009, allows all hospital-level medical institutions to establish and operate medical, oriental medicine, and dental departments. At the time, mental hospitals were included in nursing hospitals, so collaboration between doctors, oriental medicine doctors, and dentists was possible. However, the situation changed with the revision of the Medical Service Act in 2020. Psychiatric hospitals are defined as separate medical institutions from nursing hospitals. At the same time, Article 43, Paragraph 3 of the same Act included provisions allowing mental hospitals to establish and operate additional dental departments, but no separate regulations were prepared for Oriental medicine departments. In this situation, Medical Corporation A protested. They raised their voices saying that allowing oriental medicine departments to be established and operated only in hospitals, dental hospitals, and general hospitals is an infringement on professional freedom. At the same time, a constitutional appeal was requested. The Constitutional Court ruled that the current medical law was unreasonable and unanimously ruled that it was unconstitutional. Unlike other hospitals, there is no special reason not to allow the cooperation of oriental medicine doctors only in mental hospitals. Rather, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the need for oriental medicine departments in mental hospitals is even greater. In the case of mental health institutions, there are many hospitalized patients who require long-term treatment, and the purpose is to increase accessibility to medical care by allowing patients who are not free to go outside due to involuntary hospitalization to receive treatment in other subjects, such as oriental medicine. The Constitutional Court also issued a response to the effect of refuting the opinion raised by some that 'oriental medicine treatment is not necessary in mental hospitals.' It was emphasized that citizens who are medical consumers have a desire to receive integrated medical services of oriental and western medicine, and there are clinical cases showing that the treatment results are also effective. This position can be said to be an example showing that the Constitutional Court's view on the combination of oriental and western medicine has advanced. Small Business Team[View full article] Oriental medicine departments can now be established within psychiatric hospitals... What is the background to the Constitutional Court’s decision? (Shortcut)

Chung-Ang University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan) are embarking on mutual cooperation between industry and academia. Chung-Ang University Law School announced on the 4th that it signed a business agreement with Daeryun Law Firm. Attending the agreement ceremony on this day were Law School Dean Jeong-Hoon Lee, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs Soon-Ok Lee, Representative Attorney Kook-Il Kim of Daeryun, and Senior Attorney Young-Jin Ahn. Attorney Ahn is a graduate of the 10th class of Hanyang University Law School and is active in Daeryun. Through this business agreement, Chung-Ang University Law School and Daeryun will establish an industry-academia cooperation system in areas such as practical training, joint research, and information exchange. Chung-Ang University Law School said, “We plan to foster excellent legal personnel through a business agreement with Daeryun and further strengthen our expertise through cooperation such as jointly hosting academic seminars.” Reporter Yeo Se-rin (selinyo@leet.or.kr)[View full article] Chung-Ang University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm signed an industry-academia cooperation MOU (link)

Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), an expert in the fields of violent crimes, labor, and intellectual property rights, said on the 7th that it has hired representative attorney Ahn Kwon-seop, a former deputy chief prosecutor, “We will protect our clients’ legal rights based on our know-how from our time as prosecutors.” After passing the bar exam in 1993, Attorney Ahn was appointed as a prosecutor at the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office in 1996. Afterwards, he worked at the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office, the Chungju District Prosecutors' Office, and the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office, where he took on major violent crime cases, including drug and sex crimes. In 2008, he served as chief prosecutor at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office and expanded his areas of responsibility to include anti-corruption, labor, and intellectual property rights. He also played an active role in numerous prosecutors' offices, including the Jeju District Prosecutors' Office and the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, and received a commendation from the Prosecutor General. Since 2018, he has served as the head of the Yongin branch of the Legal Research and Training Institute and as a legal advisor to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Attorney Ahn took off his legal uniform in 2020 and began practicing as a lawyer in earnest. Based on his extensive experience as a prosecutor, he has shown outstanding performance in both civil and criminal cases, such as obtaining an acquittal on behalf of a client who was unfairly accused of being a sex offender or winning a civil lawsuit on behalf of the Seoul Metropolitan Government. In particular, he has distinguished himself in the field of corporate law by representing a company facing legal risks such as violations of the Construction Technology Promotion Act and tax laws and obtaining an acquittal. In addition, starting from 2021, based on many years of experience in litigation and legal consulting, He is active as an advisory attorney at the Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seongbuk-gu, and Songpa-gu Offices. Attorney Ahn said, "I am happy to join Daeryun, a large law firm that is showing growth based on excellent results in various fields. Based on the know-how I have accumulated while working as a prosecutor, I will help clients protect their legal rights in general cases as well as corporate-related cases." Daeryun Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun, said, "Attorney Ahn has accumulated extensive experience in handling a number of corporate criminal cases, including violent crime cases, during his time as a prosecutor." He added, "With the hiring of Attorney Ahn, we have expanded our work capabilities. “We will be able to provide more professional and systematic solutions to customers who visit Daeryun by strengthening it,” he said. Meanwhile, Daeryun operates a corporate legal group and has formed a team with experts such as accountants, tax accountants, and labor attorneys to provide various legal assistance in areas such as personnel and labor, rehabilitation, bankruptcy, and M&A. Reporter Park Jun-sik (parkjs@wowtv.co.kr)[View full article] Korea Economic Daily - Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) recruits lawyer Ahn Kwon-seop, a former ‘Deputy Chief Prosecutor’ (Go here) Law News - Daeryun recruits lawyer Ahn Kwon-seop, former deputy chief prosecutor (link) Segye Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) recruits Representative Attorney Ahn Kwon-seop, a former ‘Deputy Chief Prosecutor’ (Go here) Sejeong Ilbo - Recruitment of Attorney Ahn Kwon-seop, former Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Daeryun Law Firm (Go here)

Mr. A, who was accused of assault, was ordered to have his fine reduced... Official trial request court: “The assault was minor and there is no risk of reoffending” Sentencing postponed An office worker in his 40s who threw an object at a disgruntled fellow employee received a deferred sentence. On December 12 of last year, the Seoul Western District Court postponed the sentencing of a fine of 300,000 won to a man in his 40s, Mr. A, who was indicted on assault charges. Mr. A was accused of injuring fellow employee B by throwing a bottle of hand cream at him in May of last year. According to a police investigation, Mr. A admitted to the charges. However, he emphasized that he had always been stressed by the thought that Mr. B was stalking him, and that he committed the crime because he could not control his anger when he saw Mr. B coming nearby. The prosecution, which reviewed the case, acknowledged that Mr. A was guilty of assault and requested a summary order of a fine of 300,000 won. After the court sentenced him, Mr. A, who was dissatisfied, requested a formal trial. The court sentenced Mr. A to a suspended sentence. The court explained, “The defendant did not receive forgiveness from the victim,” but added, “He committed the crime accidentally due to a misunderstanding that the victim was hanging around him, and the degree of assault was minor.” He then explained the reason for sentencing, saying, “The defendant is reflecting on his mistakes and is unlikely to commit the crime again even if he is not sentenced.” Attorney Kyung-Hoon Oh of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. Depending on the case, a heavier fine than a summary sentence may be imposed,” he said. “In order to lower the sentence, it is most important to inform the court of the reasons that can be taken into account in sentencing.” Attorney Oh continued, “In this case, it was emphasized that Mr. Reporter Kim Jong-cheol (jckim99@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] An employee threw an object at a disgruntled coworker... Law ‘deferred sentencing’ (link)