Press Coverage

In the course of an internal dispute within the fishing community, the court said, "It is difficult to recognize the intent to acquire illegally...simply refusing to return is insufficient." Former executives of the fishing community who were indicted for not returning documents related to their operation were found not guilty. The Jinju branch of the Changwon District Court acquitted two people, including former fishing village leader A, who was accused of embezzlement in January. They were expelled from the extraordinary general meeting of the fishing community in June 2022. Afterwards, they were asked to return related documents such as bankbooks, accounting ledgers, and meeting minutes necessary for the operation of the fishing village community, but they did not respond. The reason was that a legal dispute contesting the validity of the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting was ongoing at the time. Accordingly, the fishing community filed a complaint against them, claiming that their operations were disrupted due to not receiving the documents back. The court found them not guilty. The court said, “It is difficult to say that the defendants at the time had an intention to illegally acquire documents from the fishing village and dispose of them as their own.” At the same time, the court added, “In light of the fact that the defendants won a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the fishing village community while contesting the validity of the expulsion resolution, we decided that it is difficult to directly evaluate the act of keeping related documents in a situation where the legitimacy of the expulsion resolution was denied as embezzlement.” Attorney Lim Seok-pil of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented the two, said, “To establish a crime of embezzlement in business, a simple refusal to return is not enough. He explained, “The intention to illegally acquire property and dispose of it as if it were one’s own must be recognized,” adding, “If, as in this case, the expulsion decision itself is judged invalid in the appeals court, the court has made it clear that the act of keeping related documents cannot be considered embezzlement based on the intention to illegally acquire property.” Reporter Kim Hee-guk kukie@kookje.co.kr[View full article] Former executive who refused to return fishing village documents... Court: Not guilty of embezzlement (link)

A business owner who was put on trial for failing to pay severance pay to employees was acquitted at the appeals court. According to the legal community on the 10th, the 3-3 Criminal Division of the Changwon District Court overturned the original trial ruling that sentenced A, a man in his 40s, who was indicted for violating the Labor Standards Act in January, to a fine of 1 million won in the appeal trial and declared him not guilty. Mr. A paid wages and severance pay to Mr. B, a trainer who quit while working at the gym he ran last year. He was accused of failing to pay within the due date. During the trial, Mr. A argued that he was not an employee under the Labor Standards Act because he had signed a freelance contract with Mr. B rather than an employment contract. Even if he was recognized as an employee, he denied intentionality, saying he was not aware of the obligation to pay because there was no precedent for paying severance pay to other trainers. The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to a fine. The court ruled, “Mr. B has been regularly paid allowances and fixed wages while working at a specific time zone agreed upon with the defendant,” and “this is equivalent to providing work in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.” Mr. A, who was dissatisfied with the result, immediately appealed. At the appeal trial, Mr. A asserted that Mr. B had committed embezzlement before leaving the company and owed him an amount of money. Therefore, during the settlement process, it was determined that there was no money to be paid, and it was emphasized that there was no intention of non-payment. The second trial court declared the person not guilty. The appellate court said, "Mr. B left the company due to unpleasant circumstances and wrote a confirmation of payment in this regard. In this situation, we cannot rule out the possibility that the defendant misunderstood that he was not obligated to pay severance pay. At the time of writing the contract, there are no circumstances showing that Mr. B raised an objection to the statement, 'There is no severance pay settlement because he is not an employee,' or requested subscription to the four major insurance policies." Attorney Cho Ik-cheon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "Payment of wages, etc. He explained, “If there are grounds to dispute the existence of the obligation and there is a significant reason for non-payment, the intention to violate the Labor Standards Act cannot be recognized.” He explained, “Given the specific contractual relationship between the two and the circumstances at the time of leaving the company, Mr.[View full article] Business owner who failed to pay trainer wages found not guilty on appeal... Law: “Not intentional” (Shortcut)

An oriental medicine doctor who was suspected of issuing a false medical certificate to a patient for a traffic accident without providing treatment was cleared of the charges by proving that the existing medical records and treatment progress were consistent with the contents of the medical certificate. According to the legal community on the 9th, the Ulsan Southern Police Station decided to not forward Mr. A, the director of an oriental medicine clinic, who was accused of violating the medical law and writing a false medical certificate in January. From 2024 to last year, Mr. A had car insurance for four patients who came to the hospital after suffering a traffic accident. He was suspected of issuing false medical certificates required for payment guarantee procedures. The insurance company filed a complaint, taking issue with the fact that actual treatment was not performed on the issuance date listed on some medical certificates. Mr. A denied the charges. It was claimed that the medical certificate in question was not written on the premise of a single treatment on the day of issuance, but was written based on previous treatment and treatment progress. At the same time, patients claimed that they continued to visit the hospital for treatment after the traffic accident and that the contents of the medical certificate were also based on medical records. Mr. A emphasized, "The issuance date written on the medical certificate indicates the time when documents to be submitted to the insurance company at the patient's request during the car insurance payment guarantee process were printed and sent. Just because there was no separate medical treatment on the day of issuance, it cannot be considered a medical certificate without examination." The police accepted Mr. A's claim. The fact that the date of issuance of the medical certificate does not match the date of actual medical treatment cannot be considered as a false medical certificate, nor can it be concluded that the contents of the medical certificate are inconsistent with actual medical practice when looking at the patients' existing medical records and treatment progress. Attorney Chae Young-jae of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "Under medical law, a medical certificate is not a document written based on the premise of a medical examination at a single point in time. In this case, the content and progress of the actual medical practice should be viewed as the standard for judgment rather than the formal element of the date of issuance of the medical certificate. He said, “I explained the structure of issuing and submitting medical certificates in insurance practice, and pointed out the limitations of the approach of holding criminal liability based only on formal information, which led to the decision not to send the case.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] ‘Issuing a medical certificate on a day when no treatment was done’ 30-year-old Oriental medicine doctor not sent to the hospital… Explanation for compliance with existing records (Shortcut)

March, when the new semester and spring moving season overlap, is the time when lease and monthly rent contracts are concentrated. When a property for sale becomes scarce, you become anxious and it is easy to omit or postpone basic procedures such as checking a copy of the register or verifying ownership. In addition, there are many tenants who are unaware that the documents and precautions to check vary depending on the type of housing, such as multi-family, multi-generational, or officetel. Most lease fraud offenders prey on the impatience of these tenants. In reality, lease fraud, such as double contracts and falsified documents, is repeated every year. According to data from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the cumulative number of victims of charter fraud reached 36,449 as of the end of January 2026. What is especially noteworthy is that multi-generational/multi-family housing and officetels account for approximately 68.2% of all damage types. Three out of four victims are under the age of 40, and they are concentrated in the youth. The multi-family houses and multi-family houses where the damage is concentrated have a similar appearance, but their legal structures are completely different. Since multi-generational housing is registered for each generation, there is a separate copy of the register for the room being contracted, so only the rights to the room in question need to be clearly considered. However, caution is needed as there are quite a few so-called ‘tin leases’ in which the deposit exceeds 70% of the sale price. On the other hand, multi-family housing has one owner for the entire building. For this reason, it is necessary to check the loans for the entire building and the rights of other tenants. This is because the total deposit of tenants who moved in before my deposit often exceeds the value of the building. If an auction proceeds in this situation, it is highly likely that it will be difficult to recover the full amount of the junior deposit. In fact, the Supreme Court and courts at various levels have recently ruled that when brokering a multi-family housing lease, a real estate agent has an obligation to accurately check the total amount of the senior tenant's deposit and explain it to the tenant. If this is neglected, liability for damages has been acknowledged. Therefore, a thorough preliminary inspection is the only way to prevent damage. Before signing a contract, it is necessary to compare the lessor's original ID card with the registered owner. When signing a contract with an agent, you should check the power of attorney and seal certificate more carefully. It is also a good idea to check in advance whether you can sign up for a deposit return guarantee. If the guarantee agency refuses to sign up, it is a strong signal that there is a problem with the rights to the property. Even before paying the balance, you must re-issue a copy of the register and make a final check to see if any liens, etc. have been added in the meantime. However, there is a limit to the ability of individuals to completely filter out increasingly sophisticated fraud methods. This is because issues such as whether the building ledger matches the register and the risk of seizure due to the landlord's tax delinquency are areas that individuals can easily miss. Therefore, it is safest to receive a legal review from an expert at the pre-contract stage. If damage occurs, a quick response is vital. Depending on the situation, you must immediately review possible legal means such as sending a certificate of contents, applying for a lease registration order, or filing a criminal complaint. This is because the possibility of recovering the deposit can vary greatly depending on the order and timing of response. As it is best to prevent lease fraud, minor doubts that arise during the contract process should not be overlooked lightly. In order to keep your precious deposit safe, it is more necessary than ever to carefully check and confirm the entire process of the contract. Help: Daeryun Law Firm Daehee Kang, Lawyer Jin Gayoung, Lawissue Reporter news@lawissue.co.kr[View full article] Back-to-school season and moving season, a time when rental contracts are crowded... How to prevent multi-generational/multi-household lease fraud (Go here)

A woman in her 50s who withdrew money from an account to pay for the hospital expenses of her father in his 90s, who was hospitalized in an unconscious state, was put on trial, but was found not guilty. The Nonsan branch of Daejeon District Court found Mr. A, who was indicted on charges of forging private documents, not guilty last January. Mr. A filled out two withdrawal slips in the name of his father, who was hospitalized in Nonsan, in May of last year and stamped them. He was accused of withdrawing 12.15 million won. The prosecution charged Mr. A with forgery of private documents, saying he had used the name of his unconscious father to prepare documents and withdraw deposits. Mr. A completely denied the charges. At the time, his father was unconscious and his mother had been managing his financial affairs, but he only visited a financial institution at his mother's request to raise money for hospital expenses. At the same time, Mr. A had withdrawn all the money at the time. He claimed that it was transferred to his mother's account and used for actual medical expenses. The court accepted Mr. A's claim and declared him not guilty. First, the court said, "In light of the fact that the cashier judged that there was no problem with the defendant and his mother accompanying him to a financial institution and withdrawing funds from the deceased's account, it is reasonable to assume that the employee was aware of the fact that the mother usually managed the father's account." It also said, "The defendant had the intention of forging private documents." It cannot be seen, and even if intent is recognized, it can be acknowledged that there was the deceased's presumptive consent to the act of preparing the withdrawal slip." Attorney Byeon Gwan-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "Forgery of a private document means a case where a person who does not have the authority to write a document prepares a document by stealing another person's name. If there was the explicit or implied consent of the owner, or if it is presumed that the owner would have naturally approved it if he or she had known in light of all circumstances, it is considered forgery. “It is difficult to see,” he explained. In addition, Attorney Byun added, “We explained in detail the circumstances in which it is difficult to conclude that it was forgery by explaining the family’s property management practices, actual use of funds, and the process of document creation with objective data,” and added, “This is a ruling that the court acknowledged that criminal intent cannot be inferred from formal acts alone.”[View full article] Daughter in her 50s who withdrew money from her unconscious father's account... Not guilty of 'forgery of private documents' (Click here)

The long-held belief that ‘performance pay is not wages’ has been broken. Last January, the Supreme Court overturned the original ruling that denied the wage status of Target Incentive (TAI) in a lawsuit claiming severance pay filed by 15 people, including former Samsung Electronics employee A, and sent the case back to the Suwon High Court. Companies that have previously considered performance bonuses as 'discretionary company bonuses' are in a situation where they have to reexamine their severance pay calculation method from the beginning due to this ruling. The key criterion of the ruling was 'whether it can be assessed that workers' provision of work can control the achievement of the goal that is the standard for payment.' The target incentive recognized as wages was a fixed amount of money in which the base bonus amount, which was the basis for its calculation, was set according to a formula (120% of the monthly standard wage) determined in advance based on the standard salary for each worker, and the scale of payment was determined in advance to some extent, and the payment amount was determined according to the degree of implementation of tasks for each business unit (30%) and the degree of financial performance achievement (70%). The Supreme Court considered the structure of this target incentive Target incentives were interpreted as wages because they were considered closer to the ex post settlement of labor performance rather than the ex post distribution of management performance. Although the sales indicator (30%) of financial performance achievement is influenced by non-labor factors, sales in a professionally specialized and advanced organization such as Samsung Electronics are the result of the intensive provision of labor by workers in the relevant area, and it is believed that the achievement of sales goals can be controlled through labor provision. On the other hand, judgments about performance incentives (OPI) were different. The performance incentive is calculated as the base amount of 20% of each business division's EVA (profit after tax operating profit minus capital costs, etc.) multiplied by the payment rate calculated based on each worker's rank or performance. However, the amount of EVA, which is the basis for calculating performance incentives, fluctuates significantly depending on exchange rates, raw material prices, capital costs, etc. In other words, the occurrence and scale of EVA are the result of a combination of other factors, such as the size of equity or debt capital, the size of expenditures, market conditions, and management judgment, in addition to workers' provision of labor. It was believed that other factors that are not closely related to workers' provision of labor and are difficult for workers to control have a greater impact. Based on this, the Supreme Court interpreted that performance incentives are not wages, considering that they are not paid in return for work but rather a distribution or sharing of profits resulting from management performance. Although this Supreme Court ruling does not present new legal principles regarding the determination of wage status, it is meaningful in that it presents more specific criteria for judging whether a company's performance incentive system constitutes wages. This appears to be an opportunity to go beyond simply judging the compensation system within Samsung Electronics and to reexamine the overall performance bonus system of our company. Until now, many companies have understood performance bonuses not as wages but as compensation for management performance. However, in the future, it has become clearer that performance bonuses can be legally evaluated as ‘wage’ depending on the payment standards and calculation structure. For workers, this means the possibility of expanding the scope of calculation of various statutory allowances such as severance pay and overtime and night allowances, and for companies, it means that there is an increased need to reexamine compensation system design and labor cost management strategies more precisely. In particular, if the payment structure of performance bonuses is closely linked to the provision of work and the scale of payment is predictable to a certain extent in advance, the possibility of it being evaluated as wages may increase regardless of the name. Conversely, in cases where the nature of distribution of management results or profit sharing is strong, there is room for denial of the nature of wages. Ultimately, it is highly likely that the core of future disputes will be the actual nature and payment structure of performance bonuses. In order to prepare for these changes, companies need to check the actual legal nature of their performance bonus system. It is important to comprehensively review the payment standards, calculation method, and certainty of payment for performance bonuses to ensure consistency with related regulations such as employment rules, compensation regulations, and employment contracts. At the same time, workers also need to accurately understand the structure and legal meaning of the performance-based pay system, and be clearly aware of how their wages are structured and what rights they have accordingly. In the end, this ruling can be said to be a case that once again confirms that the substance and structure of the system, rather than the name 'performance-based pay' itself, are the standards for legal judgment. In the future, it is highly likely that a company's compensation system will go beyond the realm of simple personnel and management strategies and become the subject of labor law risk management. Contemplating how to design and operate a performance compensation system has now become an important task for both companies and workers. Reporter Lee Dong-oh (canon35@mt.co.kr)[View full article] Are our company’s performance bonuses also wages? What are the criteria for judging performance bonuses suggested by the Supreme Court? (Shortcut)

The court ruled that the decision to transfer schools even though the victim expressed that he did not want the perpetrator punished was an abuse of discretion and was illegal. According to the legal community on the 5th, the Daegu District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by teenager A against the superintendent of the Gyeongsangbuk-do Gimcheon Office of Education in December last year to cancel the school violence disciplinary action. In 2024, A was accused of making sexually humiliating remarks to a student in his class and pinching his body. He was referred to the School Violence Measures Review Committee for his actions. The committee that reviewed the case ordered A to complete five hours of special education and transferred schools. A protested, saying that this disciplinary action was overly harsh. He was a close friend of the victim, and it was said that the incident occurred during a playful conversation between peers and there was no intention to harass him. He also filed a lawsuit asking the court to cancel the transfer, saying he had asked for forgiveness from the victim. The Office of Education immediately refuted the decision. This is because the level of A's words and actions is too high to be dismissed as a simple joke. They also argued that a school transfer was inevitable because the situation required complete separation between the victim and A. The court ruled in A's favor. The court said, "The review committee determined that there was no degree of reflection or reconciliation by the plaintiff, but considering that the victim student signed an agreement, the committee's judgment appears to be inappropriate. The plaintiff has never engaged in sexually problematic behavior other than this incident, and considering his usual relationship with the victim student, it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility of leading the plaintiff." He added, "Even if a lighter measure than a transfer is taken, it appears that education and guidance for the plaintiff can be achieved." The disposition was canceled. Lawyer Noh Gyeong-guk of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented A, explained, "According to the School Violence Prevention Act, measures against the offending student are decided based on a comprehensive judgment of the offending student's degree of remorse and the possibility of leading the way. We were able to receive a good result by emphasizing that a complete reconciliation with the victim student was achieved and that A had a good possibility of leading the way." Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Teenager forced to transfer school after harassing friend...law “excessive action” (Shortcut)

A driver who injured a child riding a bicycle while driving a vehicle in a children's protection zone was acquitted of charges. According to the legal community on the 4th, the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, a man in his 50s, who was sent in January on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Child Protection Zone Deficiency). Mr. A was driving a car in a children's protection zone in Suseong-gu, Daegu in August last year. He was accused of colliding with and injuring Person B, who was passing through an intersection on a bicycle. Group B claimed that Mr. A caused the accident by neglecting his duty to drive safely in a child protection zone. Mr. A completely denied the charges. He protested, saying, “At the time, I was traveling at a speed of 15 km/h, which is well below the speed limit of 30 km/h in the child protection zone,” and “There was no driver negligence because the bicycle rushed at 40 km/h and hit me.” The prosecution accepted Mr. A’s argument. Although it is acknowledged that a traffic accident occurred in a children's protection zone and caused injuries, it is difficult to say that there was negligence, such as a violation of the duty of care on the job, as the suspect fulfilled his duty of safe driving by following the speed limit and driving slowly. The prosecution explained the reason for non-indictment by saying, "Even if the driver recognized the danger from the moment the victim came into the driver's field of vision and braked hard, it was analyzed that it was physically impossible to avoid this accident." Attorney Hong Seung-pyo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said “For the so-called ‘Minsik Law (Article 5-13 of the Special Price Law)’ to be established, there must be not only a violation of the driver’s duty of care, but also the possibility of foreseeing and avoiding an accident,” he said. “We were able to achieve a good result by proving that it was a force majeure situation in which the victim jumped out of the blind spot at high speed and could not avoid the accident.” #Accident #Children’s protection zone #Not guilty #Bicycle Shin Min-ji (sourminjee@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] The driver who collided with a child riding a bicycle in a children's protection zone was not indicted... why? (Shortcut)

A motorcyclist who was sent to trial after colliding with a pedestrian who was jaywalking on a road near an intersection was acquitted. According to the legal community on the 11th, Judge Dong-Hwan Choi of the 6th Criminal Division of the Goyang Branch of the Uijeongbu District Court recently found Mr. A, in his 40s, not guilty on charges of violating the Special Act on Traffic Accidents (injury). Previously, Mr. A was a pedestrian crossing the road while driving a motorcycle on a one-way, two-lane road in Paju City in 2024. He was handed over to trial on charges of hitting Mr. B. At that time, Mr. B, a pedestrian who was hit by Mr. A's motorcycle, suffered serious injuries and was taken to the hospital. The prosecution filed an indictment on the grounds that 'Mr. A caused the accident by neglecting his duty to look ahead.' During the trial, Mr. A denied the charge, saying, 'At the time of the accident, it was around sunset with rain, and it was impossible to recognize Mr. B, who was jaywalking, due to the headlights of the opposite vehicle making it difficult to secure visibility.' The court accepted Mr. A's claim. The court said, “Considering that there was no crosswalk near the accident site, a number of vehicles were crossing at high speeds, and that it was around sunset when it was raining and the vehicles were driving with their headlights on, it would have been difficult for the defendant to predict that there would be someone jaywalking.” He continued, “The defendant was driving normally along two lanes, the victim was wearing a black umbrella, and the headlights obscured some of the visibility.” “In light of the possibility of obstruction, it appears that even if the defendant had fulfilled his duty to look ahead, it would have been difficult to foresee the unexpected entry of a pedestrian or avoid a collision,” the ruling said. Attorney Choi Seong-ho of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “This ruling makes it clear that a driver cannot be held criminally liable based solely on the outcome of a traffic accident,” adding, “Especially in the case of an accident involving jaywalking, there is no specific proof of foreseeability and avoidance.” “This is an example that reaffirms that this must be done first.” Reporter Shin Jin-wook jwshin@kyeonggi.com Reporter Bin Lee-kyung beekyy@kyeonggi.com[View full article] Motorcyclist in his 40s found not guilty for hitting and seriously injuring a jaywalking pedestrian (link)

The parent of a child who made a toilet mistake during an academy class because he was not allowed to use the restroom on time complained to the instructor and was sued, but the decision was not made. According to the legal community on the 27th, the Daejeon Dunsan Police Station decided not to send the case to A, a woman in her 40s who was accused of insults, threats, and attempted coercion in January. While taking a class at an academy in Daejeon in July of last year, Ms. A's child asked the instructor to use the bathroom. Permission was not granted. As a result, the child ended up making a toilet mistake in the classroom, and the problem arose after Mr. A complained to the instructor. At the time, Mr. A made remarks to the effect of 'I will take legal action', 'I will upload it to the community', and 'Write an apology', but the instructor filed a complaint, saying he felt scared and insulted. Mr. A denied the charge. Although there may have been emotionally charged expressions at the time, He protested that there was no intention to insult or threaten the other party. He also emphasized that legal action and comments on community posts were also intended to raise issues. The police ruled that not all charges were acknowledged. First, in the case of insults, it was difficult to conclude that the remarks in question were derogatory expressions that would damage the reputation of others, and that there was a lack of objective evidence to support them other than the complainant's claim. The charge of threats was also judged not to have been intended to cause direct harm to the complainant. The police determined that the academy that was present at the time of the conversation The director also explained that he took into account the statement that he felt it was dissatisfaction with the academy's response rather than the individual instructor. Regarding the charge of attempted coercion, it was acknowledged that Mr. A had requested to write an apology, but no coercion or threat of disadvantage was confirmed. Attorney Man-jung Kim of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "It cannot be immediately concluded that it is an insult, threat, or attempted coercion just because the expression was strong during the protest. The context and content of the statement, He explained, “There is a need to look specifically at the specificity of the harm and whether it is coercive.” He then pointed out, “This decision is an example of once again clarifying the standards for distinguishing between emotional protests and acts subject to punishment under criminal law.”[View full article] Child made a toilet mistake after being restrained by instructor... Parents who protested 'not guilty' (link)