Press Coverage

Notified of "no severance pay" after signing a resignation agreementAttorney Bang In-tae of Daeryun: "The substance of the employment relationship, not the title, is the key""All you have to do is sign. We will pay you a consolation payment."Mr. A, who spent 26 years at one company and rose to the position of representative director, recently received a sudden demand to resign from the overseas headquarters. The company then said it would pay a consolation payment if he signed the resignation agreement, but once the signing was complete, it took the position that "a representative director is not a worker, so we cannot pay severance pay."This is a case recently disclosed by Attorney Bang In-tae of Daeryun Law Firm. The case was a dispute in which Mr. A, who had been the representative director of the Korean branch of a European company, demanded severance pay from the overseas headquarters, and it was ultimately concluded with the full payment of 350 million won without litigation. According to Attorney Bang, global companies frequently use what is called an "Executive Resignation Agreement" when restructuring their Korean branches or carrying out a change of representative. It is a method that contains a provision not to raise legal objections in the future in exchange for paying a consolation payment.The problem is that there are not a few cases in which the overseas headquarters judges the person to be an employer merely because they are a registered officer and considers that there is no obligation to pay severance pay. However, Korean labor law regards the actual form of work as more important than the title or the form of the contract.The Supreme Court has also maintained the position in past rulings that "regardless of the designation, if a person provided labor in a subordinate manner under the direction and supervision of the employer, they must be regarded as a worker."In fact, in Mr. A's case, it is reported that he performed his duties under the specific instructions of the overseas headquarters and could not independently exercise the branch's personnel and financial authority. The explanation is that he was, in effect, closer to an employed worker under the control of headquarters than a management executive.On this basis, Attorney Bang's side demanded payment of severance pay, arguing, "Since the Labor Standards Act is a mandatory statute, an agreement to waive severance pay that is less favorable than the law is void," and reached a settlement after about two months of negotiation.Attorney Bang emphasized, "Signing a resignation agreement does not mean that the company's responsibility disappears," stressing, "The key is not the title but the substantive employment relationship." He pointed out, "If someone was an officer in name only but actually moved under the instructions of the overseas headquarters, the Korean courts are highly likely to judge them to be a worker," adding, "Overlooking Korean labor law while trusting only global standards can lead to disputes worth hundreds of millions of won."He also advised foreign-affiliated companies, "In the process of establishing a branch or appointing/replacing officers, they must closely review in advance the work-instruction system, the structure of personnel and financial authority, and the method of determining remuneration," adding, "Personnel actions carried out without an accurate understanding of Korean labor law can return as a major legal burden."Reporter Jung Ye-jin yejin0311@inews24.com [Read Full Article] [Legal Spotlight]① "I Signed, But No Severance Pay?"…The Pitfalls of Foreign-Company Executive Contracts (Go to Link)\r

Linking a network of Korean entrepreneurs worldwideStrengthening legal support for venture companies' global expansion"Expanding one-stop services linked with New York"Daeryun Law Firm is joining hands with the Venture Business Association's World Korean Venture Network (INKE) to help venture companies expand overseas.Daeryun announced on the 21st that it had concluded a business agreement (MOU) with INKE for global venture company support and overseas-expansion cooperation.The signing ceremony, held on the 19th at Daeryun's main office in Seoul, was attended by Daeryun Representative Park Dong-il, Daeryun Attorneys Yoon Kyung-won and Ahn Dong-jun, INKE Global Chairman Park Ho-sun, INKE Toronto Chapter Chair Michelle Kim, and INKE Headquarters Director Park Tae-geun, among others.INKE is a global network organization under the Venture Business Association that supports domestic venture companies' overseas expansion by connecting Korean entrepreneurs worldwide with domestic companies.Since its establishment in 2000, it has built 44 chapters in 27 countries around the world, including the United States, Canada, Japan, China, and Vietnam, and is centered on Korean venture entrepreneurs and investors active in each country.In addition, it is actively carrying out various global localization businesses—such as investment, market research, local corporation establishment, marketing, and mergers and acquisitions (M&A)—centered on strategic industry fields such as data, artificial intelligence (AI), healthcare, fintech, and bio.Taking this agreement as an opportunity, the two organizations will cooperate in various fields, including: △country-specific legal risk advisory for overseas-expanding companies △legal support related to global investment and M&A △local corporation establishment and contract review △legal support for companies linked to the overseas network △operation of global-expansion seminars and advisory programs.In particular, INKE is pushing to form expert advisory groups in each field to stably operate its global network and strengthen its overseas business support system. Through this agreement, Daeryun plans to take on the role of a core legal advisory group, providing prompt and accurate solutions to the various legal issues companies face.INKE Global Chairman Park Ho-sun said, "As demand for domestic venture companies' overseas expansion rapidly expands, the importance of responding to country-specific legal risks is greater than ever," adding, "Through cooperation with Daeryun, we expect that companies will be able to receive more substantive legal advice and comprehensive local response support in the process of entering the global market."Daeryun Representative Park Dong-il said, "Recently, corporate overseas expansion is expanding into a domain that requires comprehensive legal review—beyond simple investment or contracts—including local permits and licensing, regulatory response, and dispute prevention," adding, "We will strengthen our cross-border one-stop legal services so that venture companies struggling in the process of entering overseas markets can settle more stably into the global market."Meanwhile, Daeryun has secured local expertise centered on its New York partner law firm SJKP, and is continuously pursuing the expansion of its cross-border business through cooperation with local partner law firms and institutions in major overseas markets such as Japan, Vietnam, and China.Reporter Kim Jin-ryong (kim.jinryong@mk.co.kr) [Read Full Article] Daeryun Signs MOU with the World Korean Venture Network…Cooperation on Legal Support for Global Venture Companies' Overseas Expansion (Go to Link)\r

Manipulated account transfers about 1,100 times from right after joining the company, squandering it on living expenses-Bench: "A long-continued crime…no effort to remedy the damage, so severe punishment is unavoidable"An employee who secretly siphoned off a large sum of company money and used it privately for over ten years received a prison sentence.The 12th Criminal Division of the Ulsan District Court sentenced Ms. A, a woman in her 50s indicted on charges including occupational embezzlement, to 5 years in prison on the 3rd of last month.Ms. A was suspected of having, over about 12 years after joining a company as an accounting employee in 2013, siphoned off about 1.4 billion won of company money across about 1,100 occasions.The investigation confirmed that Ms. A falsely recorded bank transfer histories as if normally paying goods payments or labor costs to business partners, while in reality siphoning the money into accounts under her own and family members' names and using it for living expenses and the like. It was also revealed that she disguised business as being conducted by fabricating false documents and swindled company funds by having fake tax invoices issued.Mr. B, who runs the company, claimed to have suffered enormous financial losses due to Ms. A's long-term crime. He strongly urged severe punishment, saying that this had dealt a blow to management overall and also greatly damaged trust relationships with business partners.The court sentenced Ms. A to 5 years in prison. The bench said, "The defendant's crime began around the time she joined the company and continued over a long period of about ten years until it was discovered, and the amount swindled during that time is by no means small," adding, "The defendant has not been forgiven by the victim and, moreover, is making no particular effort to remedy the damage, so severe punishment is unavoidable."Attorney Im Seok-pil of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. B, explained, "This case is a crime that deceived the trust of a company that entrusted fund management to an employee and shook the very foundation of the business," adding, "Given the nature of an embezzlement crime carried out cunningly over a long period, we focused on objectively proving the act of deception and the exact scale of the damage to draw out severe punishment." whyjay@sportsseoul.comReporter Shin Jae-yu [Read Full Article] "Gulped Down" 1.4 Billion Won of Company Money Over 12 Years…Court Sentences Two-Faced Employee to 5 Years in Prison (Go to Link)\r

Attorney Kim Hyung-jin of Daeryun Law Firm: "A response strategy for the triple risk of 'contract cancellation, criminal punishment, and Resident Registration Act violation' is important"As the government launches an intensive investigation into fraudulent housing subscriptions through fake move-ins, sham marriages, sale of qualifications, and document forgery, tension is rising in the real estate market. In particular, amid news of large-scale full investigations targeting Seoul and popular sale complexes, the anxiety of winners is deepening. Attorney Kim Hyung-jin of Daeryun Law Firm, an expert in this field, advised, "Recent investigations are trending beyond merely reviewing documents to mobilizing even digital forensics and lifestyle-pattern analysis," adding, "Even a simple administrative mistake can expose one to the triple risk of contract cancellation, criminal punishment, and a Resident Registration Act violation, so it is important to establish a legal response strategy from the early stage."We asked Attorney Kim about the government's recent investigation into fraudulent subscriptions.▶What are the representative types of "fraudulent subscription" that are detected?=The most common case is fake move-in. This is the act of merely filing a move-in report to a family member's or acquaintance's address in order to obtain priority-supply qualification for residents of the relevant area, and it can constitute a Resident Registration Act violation along with a Housing Act violation. Besides this, the main detected types include sham divorce for special-supply qualification, submission of false pregnancy diagnoses, sale of subscription accounts and qualifications, and proxy subscription by handing one's financial certificate to a broker. Recently, the act of handing a financial certificate to a broker for proxy subscription is also being severely punished.▶How specifically does the government catch whether someone actually resides there?=The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and local governments extract abnormal transactions through the Real Estate Transaction Management System (RTMS), then analyze overall traces of daily life such as health insurance medical benefit records, credit card payment records, and parcel-delivery addresses. On-site verification is also conducted in parallel, such as electricity, water, and gas usage, children's school-transfer records, apartment parking-lot entry records, and elevator CCTV analysis.▶What is the standard for being subject to criminal punishment?=The key standard is "the intent of the act of deception." A false move-in report or submission of forged documents can be punished as a Housing Act violation with imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 30 million won; and if three times the profit gained from the violation exceeds 30 million won, it is aggravated to a fine of up to three times that profit. In the case of a fake move-in, a Resident Registration Act violation is added as a concurrent crime, and if the fair occupant-selection work of the business entity is obstructed, the crime of obstruction of business may also apply.▶How should one respond if unjustly suspected?=With the careful consultation and help of a specialist attorney, one must preemptively secure objective and multidimensional evidence to prove the fact of actual residence. It is important to organize one's actual daily movements by date—such as a moving-company contract, receipts for appliance and furniture purchases, management-fee payment records, internet/TV installation records, and delivery-app order records—to achieve logical consistency at the explanation stage.▶Any advice for those facing investigation?=The most important thing is to respond to the criminal procedure and the administrative disposition separately. Under Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Housing Act, once a fraudulent subscription is confirmed, the business entity must mandatorily cancel the supply contract, so even if one receives a criminal non-charge, the contract cancellation is not automatically exempted. From the early stage of the investigation, one must establish two tracks simultaneously—administrative explanation and criminal defense—and respond by legally reconstructing the facts so that a hasty answer does not lead to a result that admits intent. This is the way to minimize risk. [Read Full Article] "Winning the Housing Subscription" Isn't the End…Fraudulent Subscription Goes Beyond Contract Cancellation to Criminal Punishment (Go to Link)\r

Recently, the Fair Trade Commission and the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment jointly conducted greenwashing (eco-friendly disguise labeling and advertising) education, firing the starting signal for wide-ranging regulation of corporate environmental marketing. According to data released last year, the number of unfair advertisements related to greenwashing detected over the past five years reached 13,122 cases, showing that the authorities' blade is already sharp. Global standards are also tightening. The United Kingdom imposes fines of up to 10% of sales on violating companies, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is likewise sharply raising the level of sanctions, imposing fines of 50,000 dollars or more per case. In particular, online platforms are the fiercest battlefield where the surveillance of regulatory authorities and consumers intersect. Over the past four years, more than 3,000 violation cases were detected on a single portal site alone, and the number of detections through consumer reports also surged from 143 to 573 over three years. Between the government's integrated regulatory net aiming to eliminate blind spots and consumers who have evolved into active watchdogs, companies can survive only by discarding past complacent marketing practices and building immediate and substantive internal lines of defense. The most urgent practical measure is to completely exclude marketing-centered abstract language expressions and to establish a thoroughly data-based verification archive. Emotional rhetoric that is difficult to substantiate—such as "eco," "nature-friendly," and "non-toxic"—is the number one target of greenwashing sanctions. When a company uses eco-friendliness or carbon reduction as a product selling point, it must match and retain, on a one-to-one basis, test reports from accredited institutions or clearly quantified objective data. Blocking the use of unprovable adjectives from the moment of drafting ad copy and establishing a compliance system that communicates centered on figures and facts is the first step in preventing unfair advertising risk. For this data-verification system to operate seamlessly, a fundamental innovation of inter-departmental work processes is essential. The existing method, in which the marketing department finalizes planning and drafts and the legal team reviews afterward, has already reached its limits. From the early stage of product planning and marketing conception, research and development (R&D) personnel must mandatorily participate to provide clear technical grounds. A solid line of defense is built only when quantified source data provided by the R&D department, appropriate language refinement by the marketing department, and the legal team's judgment on the legality of integrated guidelines are internalized as a pre-approval process. Attorney Kim Dae-su of Daeryun Law Firm said, "Furthermore, contractual relationships with external distribution platforms or advertising agencies must also be comprehensively reexamined from a legal perspective," adding, "Even if the wording was drafted at the recommendation of a distribution platform or under the lead of an agency, the final legal responsibility and the arrow of fines will ultimately point to the manufacturer and seller. Therefore, when drafting an outsourcing agency contract, the responsibility for fines and brand damage arising from greenwashing issues must be clarified, and specific clauses for damages and rights of indemnity must be specified. In an intensifying regulatory environment, it is time to keep in mind that eco-friendliness is both a marketing matter and a domain of law and data, and to establish a seamless internal control system." [Read Full Article] "Green in Name Only": In the Era of Greenwashing Regulation, What Are the Response Strategies for Corporate Survival?... (Go to Link)\r

Rang the doorbell at ex-lover's home and posted a note…summary order of 3 million won fineCourt: "Attempted conversation to restore the relationship…hard to see it as inducing fear"A man in his 30s who was put on trial on charges of visiting the workplace and home of a former lover and sending messages was found not guilty by the court.The Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court announced on the 19th that on the 29th of last month it had found Mr. A—who had been indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes and of trespassing—not guilty.Mr. A was put on trial on charges of stalking, such as continuously sending text messages and visiting the home and workplace of Ms. B, with whom he had broken up last year. In this process, he also faced a trespassing charge for ringing the doorbell at the shared entrance in front of Ms. B's home and posting a note.The prosecution, viewing Mr. A's charges as established, sought a summary order of a 3 million won fine, and the court accepted this; but Mr. A objected to the ruling and requested a formal trial.During the trial, Mr. A's side claimed that he had been in a serious relationship on the premise of marriage and suddenly received notice of a breakup, and that he had merely attempted conversation to restore the relationship without any intent to stalk. He also explained that, since they had reconciled after quarreling in the past, he had no intent to induce fear in the other party during the process of contacting her.The court sided with Mr. A's argument. Regarding the stalking charge, the bench held, "The messages the defendant sent were about improving the relationship, and there were times when the victim also replied and messages were exchanged several times," judging that "it is difficult to view such message-sending as inducing anxiety or fear in the victim."Regarding the trespassing charge as well, it stated, "The defendant usually visited the victim's home frequently, and even after a previous quarrel he had visited the victim's home to apologize and reconcile before dating again," holding that "considering that he appears to have visited under the mistaken belief that there was a possibility of restoring the relationship, it is difficult to view it as an act of intrusion that disturbs the peace."Attorney Jung Hong-cheol of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "For a stalking crime to be established, it must be an act capable of causing anxiety or fear in the other party," adding, "By presenting the nature of the two people's relationship and the actual conversation records as objective evidence, we demonstrated that it did not constitute an act inducing fear." Reporter Park Yong-gyu pyk1208@kyeonggi.comReporter Kong Hye-rin heygong00@kyeonggi.com [Read Full Article] Man in His 30s Who Visited Ex-Lover's Workplace and Home…Cleared of Stalking, Found Not Guilty (Go to Link)\r

-Legal Column by Attorney Son Gye-jun of Daeryun LLC (Limited)In industrial-field subcontracting transactions, verbal instructions or work orders via messenger are more common than written contracts. The practice of first proceeding with the work and organizing the terms later makes transactions swift, but causes fatal risks when legal disputes arise. In particular, because of the gap in bargaining power between prime contractors and subcontractors, if the contract terms are not clearly recorded, the burden of proof falls entirely on the subcontractor when unfair acts such as non-payment or unit-price reductions occur. To resolve this structural imbalance, the Subcontracting Act has provided a powerful device called the "contract formation presumption system." The contract formation presumption system is a mechanism that dramatically shifts the direction of the burden of proof when a dispute arises. Previously, the subcontractor had to directly prove the existence of the contract, but by using this system, if the prime contractor does not separately refute it, the contract can be recognized as formed according to the subcontractor's assertion. The way it works is clear. The starting point is for the subcontractor to notify the prime contractor of a document stating the key terms—such as work content, payment amount, and payment method—and request confirmation. If the prime contractor that received the notice does not raise an objection in writing within 15 days, the contract is presumed to have been concluded exactly as stated in the content the subcontractor sent.This becomes a solid means of protecting the subcontractor's rights even without a formal written contract. If a subcontractor completes delivery based on verbal instructions but the prime contractor delays payment or unilaterally puts forward a unit price never previously agreed upon, the subcontractor can assert the contract's formation on the basis of the written notice sent in advance and the other party's non-response. Conversely, from the prime contractor's standpoint, delaying a reply on grounds of a staff member's absence or internal communication delays leads directly to legal risk, so caution is required. This is because the law regards 15 days of silence as legal consent.Therefore, companies participating in subcontracting transactions must clearly recognize the characteristics of this system. Subcontractors should develop the habit of organizing transaction details before and after commencing work and leaving objective evidence such as content-certified mail or emails. Prime contractors, too, must build an internal process capable of responding promptly to subcontractors' notification documents, and a risk-management system that raises objections in writing within 15 days for unclear terms is essential.When there is no clear standard such as a written contract, subcontracting disputes become even more acute. To block the spark of a dispute early and respond effectively to a crisis, one must design a favorable evidentiary structure with professional legal assistance from the early stage of the case. To protect a company's legitimate rights and interests, a strategic approach that preemptively utilizes and responds through the systems the law provides is needed now more than ever. Reporter Lee Dong-o (canon35@mt.co.kr) [Read Full Article] Subcontract Transactions: The "Contract Formation Presumption System" Created by 15 Days of No Response (Go to Link)\r

A CEO in his 30s who took out a loan under another person's name and used it as company operating funds was investigated by police on fraud charges but received a no-charge disposition.The Cheonan Seobuk Police Station decided in March not to refer the case, citing insufficient evidence, regarding Mr. A, who had been booked on fraud charges.When Mr. A needed company operating funds last year, he asked accounting staff member Ms. B to take out a loan and received about 93 million won. At the time, Mr. A said he would first use the loan as company funds and then, after a certain period, transfer it into his own name. However, when the promise was not kept, he came to face fraud charges.Mr. A completely denied the charges. He claimed that he had judged he could sufficiently repay it because there were payments due from a partner company, and that he had merely proceeded first under Ms. B's name after being informed by the lender that a name transfer would be possible. He also explained that the name transfer was not carried out because contact with the lender was subsequently cut off.The police accepted Mr. A's argument. Reviewing the account transaction records, the police judged that intent to swindle was not recognized, considering that of the money received from Ms. B, the fee was paid to the lender and the remainder went into the corporate account and was used for company operating expenses, and that Mr. A had steadily paid the loan interest for a certain period.Attorney Yang Ki-yeon of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, "Whether the crime of fraud is established is judged not by mere default on debt but by whether there was the intent and ability to repay at the time the money was received," adding, "We faithfully demonstrated the circumstances of the loan, the details of how the funds were used, and the circumstances of the interest payments."Reporter Hwang Jung-won (garden@sidae.com) [Read Full Article] CEO Who Took Out a Business Loan Under an Accountant's Name…Fraud Charge Not Referred (Go to Link)\r

As Korea enters an era of 15 million people raising companion animals, the usage of consignment facilities such as dog daycares and dog training centers is increasing. However, accidents in which dogs are injured or lose their lives within such facilities also occur, and related legal disputes are rising sharply. In particular, when an accident occurs and the business side claims it was "legitimate training" or a "disciplinary process," fierce courtroom battles often break out over whether it can be regarded as animal abuse.Recently, an important Supreme Court ruling was issued that distinguishes between disciplining a dog and animal abuse. The Court affirmed the lower court's ruling of a 3 million won fine against a trainer who, when a 10-year-old poodle entrusted to the dog daycare he ran bit his hand, pressed down on the dog for about 14 minutes, causing an injury in which its teeth fell out. At the time, the trainer denied the charges, claiming it was dominance-establishing training to prevent the dog from biting other dogs or people, but the court's judgment was different.What was the basis on which the Supreme Court and the lower court determined the trainer's act to be a clear violation of the Animal Protection Act? The court held that a violent act cannot be justified merely because there was a purpose of raising or training. It pointed out that an adult male weighing more than 80 kg pressing down for a long time on a small dog weighing only 3.5 kg was an excessive exercise of physical force that did not consider the difference in weight class, and that he ignored other available means of control. It also held that, since he should have minimized the suffering from the moment he recognized that a problem had arisen with the dog's teeth yet continued the pressing act, at least dolus eventualis (conditional intent) was recognized.A point to note is that such animal abuse does not end as a single crime. Under current law, companion animals are classified as property (objects). Therefore, where a person intentionally injures or causes the death of a dog entrusted to them by another, not only a violation of the Animal Protection Act but also the crime of property damage under the Criminal Act may be applied jointly, resulting in aggravated punishment. Furthermore, criminal punishment of the perpetrator does not mean all procedures are concluded. The victimized pet owner may, separately from the criminal complaint, pursue a civil claim for damages against the perpetrator. Beyond the refund of already-paid training and daycare fees, claims are possible for the dog's treatment costs and consolation money for emotional distress.Consignment-animal accidents occurring at dog daycares or training centers often take place in closed spaces, making it very difficult to secure evidence early on. A victimized pet owner should immediately secure CCTV footage as soon as the incident occurs and carefully obtain the veterinarian's specific diagnosis and opinion letter. In addition, preserving recordings of calls or messenger conversation histories exchanged with the business immediately after the accident can serve as circumstantial material to prove negligence or intent. Conversely, if one is unjustly accused of animal abuse despite an accident that occurred during an unavoidable training process, one must prove that the measure at the time was the minimum control absolutely necessary for training. The key to defense is to promptly secure the original CCTV footage capturing the dog's sudden behavior, opinion letters from experts in the same industry, and the behavioral assessment records and consent forms written before admission.Attorney Kwon Min-kyung of Daeryun Law Firm said, "Disputes involving companion animals easily escalate into emotional battles mixed with anger and frustration over a family member being harmed," adding, "But in court, clear facts and objective evidence—rather than emotional appeals—determine victory or defeat. If you have suffered unjust harm or been drawn into a dispute, from the early stage of the case, systematically responding with the assistance of an expert with a high understanding of the Animal Protection Act and criminal cases as a whole is what [Read Full Article] Pet Injury Accidents at Dog Daycare: What Are the Legal Standards Between Discipline and "Animal Abuse"?\r (Go to Link)

The head of a local children's center was suspected of inappropriate physical contact, such as pulling at the side of a middle school girl, but a decision not to indict was made as there was no evidence to recognize it as molestation.According to the legal community on the 18th, the Bucheon Branch of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office decided last month not to indict Mr. A, the head of a local children's center, who had been referred on charges of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Act on the Protection of Children and Adolescents Against Sex Offenses.Mr. A was suspected of having, around January last year, forcibly molested Ms. B, who attends the center, by repeatedly poking and pulling at her side while mentioning dieting.However, Mr. A denied all the charges. He claimed there was no fact that he pulled at the victim student's side, and that it was merely behavior that arose during an ordinary conversation about students' body types, lifestyle habits, dieting, and the like. He also emphasized that the place where the incident occurred was a space used together by many students and teachers, with frequent traffic, making it an environment where molestation would be difficult.The prosecution determined that, based on statements from center officials and numerous students, there was insufficient objective material to recognize it as sexual abuse. It found that there were circumstances that partially conflicted with the victim student's statement, and that no direct evidence such as CCTV or recordings to support it was confirmed.The prosecution judged that even if there had been some physical contact, it appeared to be behavior that occurred during a conversation about the victim student's weight or dieting, and it was difficult to conclude that he had molested her with sexual intent.Attorney Kim Hyung-geun of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, stated, "In the crime of indecent assault, whether an act constitutes molestation is not judged solely by the victim's subjective feelings; it must be judged prudently by examining the circumstances and place of the act, the situation at the time, and the mutual relationship," adding, "By systematically organizing the center's operational structure, the statements of teachers and students, and the environment at the time of the incident, we actively demonstrated that it was not an act carried out with sexual intent, and as a result were able to obtain a non-charge disposition." [Read Full Article] Child Center Head Suspected of Molesting a Middle School Girl Not Indicted…No Evidence in an Open Location\r (Go to Link)