Press Coverage

Recently, the Seoul Administrative Court increased the number of courts dedicated to school violence from 2 to 4. This measure is in response to a steep increase in the number of related cases filed since the establishment of a dedicated court in 2023. In fact, the number of annual school violence administrative litigation cases filed with the administrative court rapidly increased from 51 in 2022 to 134 in 2025. In effect, the final destination for resolving school violence cases is the court. Behind the intensifying legal response from parents and students, there is a sense of crisis that the results of the School Violence Review Committee's disposition are directly related to the students' future. Disciplinary records from the Academic Violence Committee under the Office of Education remain in the school records and have a fatal impact on future career paths, including college entrance exams. In fact, out of 3,273 test takers with a confirmed history of school violence in the 2026 college entrance exam, 2,460, or 75%, were found to have failed. However, recently, there have been frequent cases where even simple fights or misunderstandings have become excessively controversial and resulted in unfairly severe disciplinary action. There was also a case where a playful conversation between classmates led to a transfer, but the court ruled to cancel the decision after reconciliation with the victim was recognized. This suggests that there is a clear opportunity to correct unreasonable dispositions through school violence administrative litigation. Attorney Kim Dae-won of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) said, "For a successful school violence administrative lawsuit, it is essential to collect objective and clear evidence from the early stage. First, if you have been unfairly identified as a perpetrator or received excessive disciplinary action, you must focus on proving that the act did not meet the requirements for school violence. Reveal the context of the case through messenger conversation details, factual confirmation from surrounding students, etc., and identify procedural flaws in the school violence committee investigation process and the appropriateness of the level of disciplinary action. “There is a need to argue legally,” he explained. He continued, "On the contrary, the victimized student must prevent secondary damage caused by the offending student's harsh punishment or the school's lukewarm response. They must persuade the court by arguing the illegality of the existing disposition based on objective data such as hospital medical certificates and psychological counseling records." Attorney Kim Dae-won said, "What is important to note is that the effect of disciplinary action is not suspended just by filing a lawsuit. In order to prevent disciplinary action from being implemented or recorded in the school record during the lawsuit period, an 'application for suspension of execution' must be filed in parallel with an administrative lawsuit. All irreparable damage that will occur due to the disposition and the impact on public welfare must be disclosed in detail, and the possibility of winning the claim on the merits must be fully explained in accordance with the recent Supreme Court decision 2025mu565. In the application for suspension of execution, He said, “Elaborate preparation equivalent to that of a lawsuit on the merits is required.” He continued, "School violence administrative litigation is a serious legal dispute with a clear burden of proof. If you want to cancel or reduce disciplinary action, you must exclude subjective emotional responses. Collection of evidence based on facts, consistent statements, and systematic response according to legal procedures are the only sure ways to protect the future of students."[View full article] Increasing number of administrative lawsuits against school violence, evidence should be used instead of emotion (link)

The court ruled that a securities company that had postponed the return of funds invested in an expired fund must compensate for the full amount of damages. In particular, it is attracting attention as an unusual ruling that breaks the existing practice of holding investors partially responsible and recognizes 100% responsibility of financial institutions. According to the legal community on the 31st, the Seoul Northern District Court ruled on the 10th that in a lawsuit claiming contract money filed by a woman in her 70s against Securities Company B, "the proceeds already received from the investment principal." The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying, "Pay the full amount, which is approximately 265.88 million won. This is a result of fully acknowledging the actual damages claimed by the plaintiff. In 2019, Mr. A was introduced to an employee of B Securities Company in the same branch through his main bank. At that time, the employee recommended a real estate fund, a first-class ultra-high risk private equity fund that could result in a loss of the entire principal, and Mr. A gave 304.5 million won to it. I invested. The problem arose when a dispute with movie theater tenants arose due to the COVID-19 incident and the sale of real estate fell through. Even though the originally set fund maturity date was exceeded twice, Mr. A ultimately did not receive his investment back. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming that he did not receive a proper explanation about the ultra-high risk structure of the product or the possibility of principal loss at the time of investment, and that the basic principle of recommending a product appropriate for the investor's situation was not followed. On the other hand, Securities Company B completely denied its obligation to return the investment. Since the real estate sale was not completed and the fund was not cashed out, the contract cannot be considered terminated. In addition, the securities company even refused to request that “if it is difficult to return the cash, at least hand over the fund certificate as is.” As the Capital Markets Act was revised and the minimum investment standard for private equity funds was raised to 500 million won, Mr. A, who invested 300 million won, was deemed 'unqualified'. However, the court ruled in Mr. A's favor. The court acknowledged the violation of the duty of explanation and the principle of suitability under the Capital Markets Act, saying, "The defendant relied only on information received inappropriately from the bank without knowing the latest information of the investor, and unreasonably recommended ultra-high-risk products to the plaintiff, an elderly and vulnerable financial consumer." He continued, "The limit on the investment standard amount is only a regulation applied when issuing a new fund, and cannot be applied at the stage of settling and returning existing contracts." “It is against the principles of good faith to reduce the amount of compensation for unconfirmed responsibility,” he said, and ruled for full compensation. Attorney Nam Kwon-yul of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the plaintiff, said, “The plaintiff was in a desperate situation where he had to support the medical expenses of his unconscious son and the living expenses of his family on behalf of his widowed spouse.” He pointed out, “The recommendation of an ultra-high-risk product that does not fit the financial purpose at all to vulnerable financial consumers in a trustworthy space such as a bank branch is a clear mis-sale.” “This ruling, which breaks the customary offset of investor negligence and recognizes 100% responsibility of financial institutions, is a very meaningful precedent that demonstrates the court’s strong will that it can no longer grant impunity to perpetrators,” he explained. #incident #court #privatefund #fullcompensation Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Incomplete sale of private equity funds to elderly investors in their 70s... Court rules for ‘full compensation’ (link)

An employee of a government- and local government-funded organization who was suspected of writing and submitting false official documents in connection with a large-scale national project was cleared of the charges after a prosecutorial investigation. According to the legal community on the 30th, the Masan Branch of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office acquitted Mr. A, a man who had been sent on charges of obstruction of official duties on the 13th, due to insufficient evidence. Mr. A, who worked at a foundation that was a government- and local government-funded organization, was admitted to a theme park selected as a national project in 2019. While in charge of licensing-related work, he applied for a ‘pre-construction use permit’ from the relevant ministry. During this process, Mr. A was accused of writing the completion rate as 100% in the supervisor’s opinion and arbitrarily fabricating and submitting an image of the seal of a private sector supervisor who was not present at the time. At the time, in reality, construction in some areas had not been completed. Accordingly, local government B, which was in charge of management and supervision, accused Mr. A of interfering with the legitimate performance of public officials' duties by falsifying documents as if the entire process had been completed, despite knowing that there were unconstructed parts. However, Mr. A denied the charges. At the time of applying for a use permit, the supervisory director had already confirmed and stamped appropriate construction on the ‘Construction Project Management Report’, which is a higher-level document, so he only believed in this and processed the work, and there was no intention to deceive. The prosecution also accepted this claim. It is difficult to say that Mr. A only recognized that the construction was completed based on the construction project management report, and had the intention of making a false statement. The prosecution also determined that since the government agency with final approval authority was already aware of the fact that some facilities were inadequate through on-site inspections, the written opinion submitted by Mr. A could not be considered to have influenced the public official to the extent of causing a misunderstanding or distorting the review judgment. Attorney Jeon Kang-woo of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “The crime of obstruction of official duties can only be established by taking advantage of the ignorance of the other public official, but in this case, the crime cannot be established because the government office in charge is already aware of the current situation. He said, “We were able to receive a decision not to prosecute by carefully explaining that the work in question was not an arbitrary act, but normal work according to the order of approval and that there was no intention to make false information.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Public institution employee acquitted of false submission of national project documents... There is no intention, and the competent authority is aware of the deficiencies (click here)

Construction work involves numerous steps, including design, construction, and supervision, and involves multiple parties, from the owner to the subcontractor. The longer the construction period, the greater the possibility that unexpected variables will occur, which will soon lead to acute disputes. In particular, construction disputes require consideration of labor, materials, and civil complaints issues as well as interference with pre-post processes, so early response is paramount. The most effective way to win a construction dispute is prevention, and the first step is drafting a contract. When reviewing drawings and contracts, it is essential to carefully consider and codify all risks that may arise for each process after construction begins. In particular, specific and clear details must be written to prevent differences in interpretation between parties in the future. In addition, due to the long-term nature of construction, numerous changes are bound to occur on site. However, 'verbal agreements', which are commonly used in practical settings, inevitably face limitations in proof in the event of a post-facto dispute. Even minor changes must be recorded in writing and signed by both parties. In particular, since the relationship between changes to a contract becomes the basis for its effectiveness, it is also necessary to establish a basis, such as by writing process meeting minutes, or to clearly record the date and time of the change. If construction is suspended or resumed, the reason and date and time, and for delays in construction, the cause and responsibility must be written in writing. If the cause of the delay lies with the orderer, this must be officially notified and recorded in order to secure an advantageous position in future liquidated damages disputes. In addition, in the event of a dispute, it is necessary to specify in advance in the contract which method to use among mediation, arbitration, and litigation to establish a rapid response system. Ultimately, the most certain strategy to win a construction lawsuit is to closely reflect all predictable scenarios in the contract and make sure to keep all changes in the construction process in writing. If necessary, it is most important to take preemptive action to eliminate the seeds of potential disputes from the contract conclusion stage through the assistance of legal experts. This is because thorough contract writing and thorough change management are the surest means of preventing the possibility of disputes and the best way to secure an advantageous position. Reporter Lee Dong-oh (canon35@mt.co.kr)[View full article] [Contribution] The key to winning a construction dispute lies in thorough contract writing and change management (link)

When investigators from public health centers or the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service knock on the doors of medical institutions or pharmacies, there is a document that inevitably appears at the end of the investigation. It is a document called a ‘confirmation of fact’ or ‘confirmation of violation.’ The format is simple. The person being investigated signs in his/her handwriting, ‘I confirm that I have committed the following violations.’ However, the legal ramifications are by no means simple. The court treats this document as evidence equivalent to a de facto confession. The Supreme Court maintains the position that if an administrative agency receives a confirmation letter admitting a specific violation during an on-site investigation, it is difficult to deny its evidentiary value unless there are special circumstances such as it was written forcibly or it is difficult to use as proof due to insufficient content. The problem is that the burden of proof lies with the person being investigated to prove that it was written under ‘special circumstances’, that is, under compulsion. Even if there was pressure from the investigator, it is realistically very difficult to prove this after the fact. In actual investigation sites, there are many cases where direct psychological pressure is applied. Among the cases I consulted with, there was one where the investigator said, "If you stamp the confirmation now, that's it, but if you don't stamp it, you have to look at the entire ledger of the headquarters." In another case, the person under investigation stated, “I don’t know if it violated the law or not, but I wrote it because they told me to.” There was also a case where the confirmation written by the client, who runs a pharmacy, following the investigator's instructions on the day of the field investigation contained some information that the client himself did not remember. If the above situation arises, the person being investigated may be subject to unfair treatment because he or she must prove that the contents of the statement are not true. Such coercion of a statement of fact may constitute criminal coercion, and furthermore, it is very unfair in that it violates the right to refuse to make a statement guaranteed under the Constitution. However, unlike criminal procedures, the guarantee of the rights of the parties in administrative investigation procedures falls far short of this, and awareness of the procedural legitimacy of courts and administrative agencies is weak. Therefore, it is important for the parties involved in the case to take good care of their procedural rights. Specifically, medical institutions and pharmacy managers should keep the following in mind when conducting field investigations. First, it is necessary to distinguish whether the wording of the confirmation is a ‘statement of facts’ or a ‘legal evaluation’. ‘There is a specific post on the website’ is a confirmation of fact, but ‘the post constitutes a violation of medical law’ is a legal judgment. Even if the person being investigated can confirm the facts, they have no legal basis to admit for themselves whether it is a violation. The determination of whether or not there is a violation is the responsibility of the administrative office and the court. Therefore, it is justifiable to refuse to sign a statement containing a legal evaluation, so it is not an unreasonable request to request that the statement be modified to state only objective facts. Second, refusal to sign is a right, not disobedience. If the investigator forces you to sign or makes comments implying that you will be disadvantaged if you refuse, you must take note of the contents. It is best to contact a lawyer immediately during the investigation process, and if this is not possible, at least securing time by saying, 'I will review the contents and then sign' can make a difference in the situation. Third, if you have already signed, you must move immediately. You must immediately secure materials to prove facts different from what is stated in the confirmation, such as prescriptions, dispensing records, medical records, accounting ledgers, and transaction statements. If a coercive atmosphere has been created, recording the circumstances in detail immediately after the conclusion of the investigation can also be useful evidence. CCTV footage from the day of the investigation and statements from bystanders are especially important. Since it is automatically overwritten after a certain period of time, you should request preservation of the video or save it yourself as soon as possible. A single fact-confirmation letter can be the decisive basis for administrative action leading to license suspension, business suspension, fines, and even criminal charges. If you treat signing the documents presented by the investigator as if it were an insignificant procedure, you may end up facing unfair circumstances later. Therefore, it is important to check the contents before signing and, if necessary, seek expert assistance. |Contribution| Attorney Lee Il-hyung of Daeryun Law Firm (Pharmaceutical & Bio-Healthcare Center)[View full article] [Contribution] Tips for responding to the practice of requesting factual confirmation when investigating medical institutions and pharmacies (link)

Daeryun Law Firm, which provides integrated services ranging from response to major lawsuits to preventive consulting and response to defect appraisals to protect the contractor's right to defend in the plaintiff-centered defect litigation market, announced on the 30th that it has officially launched the 'Defect Litigation Center' to protect the legal rights and interests of construction companies and provide a systematic response system in construction defect disputes. The purpose of the new center is to strengthen the contractor's right to defense in the existing defect lawsuit market, which is biased toward the plaintiffs (residents' representative meetings, etc.). Daeryun plans to provide customized risk management services to construction companies through defendant-specific strategies and preventive consulting. Daeryun has a team of experts in each field, led by Center Director Kim Kwang-deok, who has nearly 20 years of practical experience in construction companies and medium-to-large law firms. Attorney Park Jeong-gyu, who has experience as a Supreme Court trial researcher and construction court judge, Kang Dae-hee, who has distinguished himself in advising construction companies, and Kim Hyeong-jin, who has numerous achievements including large-scale construction projects. A lawyer joined to increase professionalism. Here, attorney Seon Yoo-ju, who specializes in redevelopment and reconstruction and is registered with the Korean Bar Association, and attorney Shin Hye-jin, who has extensive experience in providing legal advice to public institutions such as LH, plan to establish a collaborative system to resolve the grievances of construction companies in a three-dimensional way. The Defect Litigation Center goes beyond simple litigation and provides integrated services such as defect prevention consulting, construction contract review, and defect appraisal response. In particular, at the defect evaluation stage, which is the core of litigation, we focus on calculating the reasonable scope of liability by closely analyzing various reasons for limitation of liability, such as design negligence or usage negligence. We have also strengthened our internal infrastructure to respond effectively. In connection with the evidence investigation center in Daeryun, we secure objective physical evidence such as construction records and supervision reports and establish a logical defense system. At the same time, we plan to cooperate with carefully selected defect appraisal companies to share the latest precedents and technology trends and provide services that combine technology and law to construction companies. Daeryun Center Director Kim Gwang-deok said, “Due to the nature of projects, stable risk management is essential for construction companies,” and emphasized, “Based on Daeryun’s unique ability to secure evidence and technology network, we will become a partner that protects construction companies’ legitimate defense rights and resolves management uncertainties.” Reporter Kim Hee-guk kukie@kookje.co.kr[View full article] Kukje Newspaper - Daeryun Law Firm Launches Defect Litigation Center... Strengthening construction company response system (click here) Tax Ilbo - Daeryun Law Firm Launches Defect Litigation Center... Strengthening construction company response system (click here) Aju Economic Daily - [Law Firm Lounge] Daeryun launches ‘Defect Litigation Center’ specializing in construction company defense (Go here)

Recently, voice phishing damage has been increasing rapidly. According to data from the National Police Agency, voice phishing damage increased by about 47% from KRW 854.5 billion in 2024 to KRW 1.2578 trillion the following year. The number of cases also increased by 12% over the same period. In particular, as criminal methods become more sophisticated, cases of people going beyond simple financial losses and becoming involved in crimes without their knowledge are appearing. A representative example is the so-called ‘passbook rental/account rental’ method, which uses account information for crimes under the guise of loan procedures. Even if you thought you were a victim, you can be subject to criminal punishment just for providing an account. Article 6, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits the rental of access media such as bankbooks, check cards, cash cards, and OTPs. Violators may be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 30 million won. However, not all cases are subject to punishment just because an account is provided. ‘Renting of access media’ refers to the act of allowing another person to conduct an electronic financial transaction using an access media without the user’s management or supervision while receiving, requesting, or promising compensation. The ‘compensation’ referred to here means economic benefit, and the standard for judgment is whether it was provided with the knowledge of such benefit. (Supreme Court ruling 2020Do16468, delivered on April 15, 2021) This legal principle has actually been applied in cases conducted by the author. Mr. A, who has been an athlete his entire life, was contacted by a financial counselor while looking for a loan on the Internet. Believing the explanation that “you can only get a loan if you have accumulated transaction records,” I provided my account information, bank ID, and password, but was later asked by the counselor to retransmit the deposited money or purchase virtual assets. Although he followed the instructions without much doubt, the account was used as a channel for voice phishing funds, and Mr. A was eventually investigated for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. The key to the case was whether Mr. A was aware of the crime and provided the account. Circumstances in which money was promised or paid in return for providing an account have not been confirmed. As a result of explaining that he had very limited financial experience, that he surrendered to the investigative agency and returned some of the funds to the victim, he was ultimately not indicted as it was judged that the intention of renting access media was difficult to recognize. Providing a passbook or account to another person like this may seem like a simple convenience, but it can lead to realistic disadvantages such as criminal punishment as well as restrictions on financial transactions. In particular, if you are registered as a ‘financial disorderly person,’ serious restrictions may occur, such as restrictions on credit card issuance or loan use for a certain period of time. As in Mr. A’s case, access media rental often begins with words such as ‘You must create a loan record’ or ‘You only need to check the remittance details.’ Loan advertisements with unreasonable conditions, contact via Telegram, and requests to provide accounts, cards, and OTPs are typical signs of crime. Under no circumstances should access media be passed on to others. If funds from an unknown source have been deposited into your account, you must never transfer or withdraw the funds and must immediately report them to financial institutions and investigative agencies to confirm the facts. If you have already become the subject of an investigation, you must systematically organize the circumstances in which you provided the access medium, specific contact details, whether compensation was received, and the process of following instructions, from the initial stage. Like Mr. A, you can expect non-indictment or leniency only if you can prove with objective data that you did not receive compensation and that there was no intent to commit the crime. In cases where intentionality is an issue, the initial response and method of explanation determine the outcome. This is why the assistance of an experienced professional lawyer is necessary. ● Contributions by external writers may differ from the editorial direction of this paper. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Bankbook/account rental, you can become a voice phishing perpetrator without your knowledge (Shortcut)

“I thought it was a part-time job, but I became an accomplice to voice phishing.” Attorney Ahn Young-jin of Daeryun Law Firm published “I Thought It Was a Part-time Job, but I Became an Accomplice to Voice Phishing,” a practical guide for those involved in voice phishing cases. This new book was designed for those who started working thinking it was just a part-time job but ended up getting involved in voice phishing and being investigated by investigative agencies. It is characterized by detailed response strategies for the entire criminal process that the suspect will face, from the initial stage of the investigation to the trial. The author, Attorney Youngjin Ahn, is a criminal lawyer registered with the Korean Bar Association and is currently working on criminal cases in various fields as a member of the Daeryun Criminal Specialized Group. In particular, we have been specializing in various types of voice phishing cases, such as cash delivery, withdrawal, and account provision. Previously, in 2024, he published “Sex Crime Defense Guidelines Introduced by a Criminal Lawyer”. Attorney Ahn conducted an in-depth analysis of recent acquittal cases in courts across the country and clearly pointed out the court’s standards and logical basis for acquittal. This is expected to be a useful guideline for defendants who need to go beyond theoretical legal knowledge and exercise their practical defense rights. Specific strategies for responding in practice were also given special attention. We have systematically organized practical points that can be immediately used in the actual case handling process, such as how to write a report, case merging strategy, reduction of sentence claims based on sentencing standards, and victim settlement procedures. Attorney Ahn Young-jin said, “This book is a guide that focuses on practical case response rather than academic theory,” and added, “I hope that it will help those who have been unfairly involved in a voice phishing case and are about to face an investigation or trial to understand the flow of the case and set their own response direction.” [Reporter Jeong-heon Son, Law Leader] twson@lawleader.co.kr][View full article] Law Leader - “I thought it was a high-paying part-time job, but is he an accomplice to voice phishing?”... Attorney Ahn Young-jin publishes practical response guidelines (link) Roishu - 'I thought it was a high-paying part-time job, but is he an accomplice to voice phishing?' Attorney Youngjin Ahn publishes practical response guidelines (link)

Domestic rights company for overseas products, “Same structure and unauthorized use of trademark…exclusive rights infringed” Police: “Indirect infringement is not subject to criminal punishment…There is no concern about consumer confusion” The representative of a distribution company who was accused of unauthorized theft of patent rights and selling counterfeit goods was cleared of charges. Gimpo Police Station announced on the 26th that it has decided not to forward the case to Mr. A, the owner of the distribution company who was booked on charges of violating the trademark law. Company B, a company holding domestic patents and trademark rights, was accused of selling counterfeit products by using its registered trademark and patent rights without permission. Company B claimed that Mr. A's product was substantially the same as its own product and that its brand name was written in the product name and advertising text without permission during the online sales process. Mr. A completely denied the charges. He refuted that the product does not fall within the scope of patent rights because the way it operates is different, and that it only used its own officially registered trademark during the sales process and never stole the other brand. The police decided not to send the case and said, "Although the structure of the suspect's product and Company B's patented product are similar, there are some differences." He added, "Even if this fact falls under the 'indirect infringement' under Article 127, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Act, this is a violation of the criminal law that punishes infringement of patent rights. “It is not the purpose of stipulating the composition requirements, so it is not subject to criminal punishment,” he explained. Regarding the charge of violating the trademark law, “All suspect products bear trademarks registered by the suspect,” and added, “There is a lack of objective evidence to suggest that consumers may confuse the suspect product with foreign products.” Attorney Cho Min-woo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “Article 127 of the Patent Act is intended to protect patent holders by imposing civil liability on indirect infringers.” “It is a regulation for the purpose,” he said. “We were able to defend the case early by refutating Company B’s claim that they misunderstood this as grounds for criminal punishment and even proving the use of our own trademark.” Intern reporter Yujin Lim iyj721@kyeonggi.com[View full article] Company representative accused of patent and trademark theft... Police say they are not subject to criminal punishment and will not be sent (link)

On the 20th, a fire occurred at an automobile factory in Daedeok-gu, Daejeon, killing 14 employees. As nine deaths were discovered concentrated in a 2.5-story duplex space that was not on the drawings, suspicions of arbitrary structural changes or illegal expansion are being cited as one of the main causes of increased casualties. The legal community predicts that this disaster will lead to a legal battle over the business owner's failure to fulfill his safety management duties depending on the results of future investigations. In this regard, attorney Kim Hyeong-jin of the Daeryun Construction and Real Estate Group at Law Firm said, "If the suspicion of illegal expansion is confirmed to be true and the structure catches fire, “If a significant causal relationship with the expansion of human casualties, such as preventing evacuation, is recognized, it will be a key basis for holding the management responsible for heavy responsibility under the Severe Accident Punishment Act,” he said. “The fact that a space not on the drawings was operated itself could be an indicator that the safety and health management system was not properly established and implemented.” The following is a Q&A with Attorney Kim. - If large-scale casualties such as the Daejeon fire occur and violations of the law, such as negligence in safety management, are detected, the business owner must be What is the most fatal legal provision? ▲If a violation of the obligation to ensure safety and health is confirmed as a result of the investigation, the strongest punishment is Article 6 (Penalty Provisions) of the Serious Accident Punishment Act. According to this provision, if one or more deaths occur due to a violation of the obligation to ensure safety and health specified in Article 4, the business owner or manager is subject to a fixed-term prison sentence of more than one year or a fine of not more than 1 billion won. In this case, as the number of deaths reached 14, it seems difficult to avoid a prison sentence, and the corporation could also be fined up to 5 billion won under Article 7. - It is still under investigation, but if it is confirmed that a 2.5-story space that was not on the drawings was arbitrarily created, what provisions of the Building Act could be problematic? ▲ It is a violation of Articles 11 (building permit) and 108 (penalties) of the Building Act. Extensions that increase the floor area of ​​a building must obtain permission from the local government. Anyone who violates this rule and builds a duplex arbitrarily will be subject to imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 500 million won. In particular, in the case of the court, immediately after a number of casualties occur, as in this case, apart from the administrative corrective order, the investigative agency also proceeds with a judgment on criminal liability. - Even if the illegal expansion was not the cause of the fire, can the fire be held responsible for the spread of damage due to 'duty-related negligence'? ▲ Yes. Article 268 of the Criminal Act (Occupational Negligence Manslaughter) stipulates that a person who causes death due to professional negligence shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 5 years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won. If it turns out to be true that the windows on the floor suspected of being illegal were narrow and the external passage was limited, this becomes a key element in proving the causal relationship between the negligence of the business owner and the death. In other words, if the structure in question was legal and the employees were able to evacuate, there is a higher possibility that liability for occupational negligence manslaughter will be recognized. -How are violations related to firefighting facilities, such as oil vapor and sandwich panel structures in the factory, handled? ▲Whether or not the Fire Prevention Act (Fire Prevention and Safety Management Act) has been violated is considered. Due to the nature of the process, even though there are many combustible materials, if firefighting facilities such as sprinklers are not properly maintained and managed, you are subject to severe punishment. In particular, since there is a high possibility that spaces suspected of illegal expansion are not equipped with legal fire-fighting facilities, this may lead to separate criminal punishment through a special investigation by the National Fire Agency. -Legal guidance that management currently operating old factories or shopping malls should use this disaster as a lesson to check. ▲It is too late after an accident occurs. First of all, risk factors such as fire risk processes must be blocked in advance through risk assessment, etc., and a thorough investigation must be conducted to determine whether the floor plan on the building register matches the actual space in use. If there is a duplex or temporary building that is not on the drawings, it must be demolished immediately or consult a legal expert to determine whether it was a legal procedure. In addition, the only way to minimize legal risks is to check whether firefighting facilities are being obscured by illegal structures and causing ‘visual and functional impairment.’ Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] ‘2.5 floors’ with many dead… The cost of customary ‘illegal expansion’ seen in the Daejeon disaster (link)