Press Coverage

Recently, large-scale fraud has been rampant, recruiting investors with the lure of high profits and stealing their investment funds. In fact, according to the interim results of the special crackdown on investment fraud announced by the police in February of this year, a total of 7,232 cases were detected during the 17-month crackdown period, and 3,300 people were arrested. In particular, the total amount of damage received during the period was calculated to be around 894.9 billion won. Especially these days, the damage is becoming more severe due to the so-called ‘Ponzi scheme’, which has become more multi-level. They operate an illegal multi-level organization and plan systematic fraud. After gaining the trust of victims over a long period of time, they attract not only the victims, but also the victims' families and acquaintances, causing not only financial losses but also psychological damage. To explain the Ponzi scheme in more detail, let's look at the case I am currently working on. Uplus KMA (hereinafter referred to as UK Platform), headquartered in Changwon-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, operates an asset management service business, including medical services, with more than thousands of members across the country. The company urged its members to invest, guaranteeing monthly returns of 5-10%. In addition, the company has been providing points that can be used on the platform when it receives investment funds from members. Members use these points to receive services such as receiving treatment at affiliated hospitals or taking cruises through travel companies. From the members’ perspective, there was no reason not to participate. Additionally, if you invite family or acquaintances, you can earn more points, so additional rewards are guaranteed. However, the situation took a turn recently when the CEO of the UK platform was arrested on charges of fraud. It was revealed that the company had been using the money of new investors to divert profits that were supposed to be paid out to existing investors. The UK platform not only stopped paying profits but also stopped providing various services that members had used. In the end, the damage grew out of control, and the corporation I work for is gathering victims and preparing a class action lawsuit. In Ponzi fraud cases such as the UK platform, quick response is key. First, if the scale of fraud damage is large, a class action lawsuit can be considered. In order to proceed with a class action lawsuit, you must first recruit victims. Usually, there is a benefit to a joint action with 10 or more people, so the key is to gather as many victims as possible. Class action procedures are largely divided into criminal and civil. First, victims, along with their legal representative, clearly outline the details of the incident and the extent of the damage and submit a complaint through the local police station. Criminal litigation can be said to be the first step to maximizing the criminal punishment of the perpetrator and gaining an advantageous position from the victim's perspective. In addition, a civil lawsuit must also be filed to recover damages. This is because criminal judgments can be used as powerful evidence in civil lawsuits. If civil liability for damages is recognized and a judgment for compensation for damages is made, compulsory execution through seizure, etc. of the perpetrator's assets becomes possible. Daeryun Ko Jeong-hang, a criminal lawyer at the Daeryun Law Firm, said, "A class action lawsuit usually takes six months to a year to complete just the criminal procedure. If a civil lawsuit is added, it may take even longer, so thorough preparation is necessary in advance." He added, "Therefore, if you are planning a class action lawsuit, we recommend that you appoint a legal representative with extensive experience in representing related cases. Professionals who are well-versed and experienced in group criminal complaints, civil preservative dispositions and litigation, etc. “Only by proceeding with the case with a qualified law firm or lawyer can the loss be recovered as quickly as possible and the damage that has already occurred can be minimized, and the perpetrators who have committed a mistake that has completely destroyed the lives of the victims must be severely punished,” he said. Reporter Jin Ga-young (lawissue) (news@lawissue.co.kr)[View full article] A large-scale Ponzi scheme is rampant... What are the damage response measures? (Shortcut)

A group of people who lured investors into a stock reading room using famous investment experts and then defrauded them of 4 billion won in investment money was sentenced to prison. On the 10th of last month, the Daegu District Court sentenced Mr. A, in his 30s, to six years in prison on charges of fraud and violation of the law on regulation and punishment of concealment of criminal proceeds. Four accomplices who were also brought to trial were also sentenced to 3 to 8 years in prison each. Mr. A and others have been incarcerated since February of last year. They are suspected of running a fake investment site until April and stealing about 4.8 billion won from 35 victims, including Mr. B. They were found to have attracted unspecified people by posting advertisements on the Internet and social media (SNS) saying, "High profits of up to 300% are expected after listing," and deceived victims by impersonating investment experts. In addition, they deposited the swindled money into a cannon account managed by the organization or pretended to buy and sell gift certificates. It was also confirmed that they had concealed the proceeds of crime through methods such as transfers. The court pointed out, "The role played by the defendants was essential for the completion of the crime and realization of profits in this case, and the degree of their participation was not light." It also stated the reason for sentencing, saying, "It was a planned and organized crime, and the number of victims was large, the amount of evasion was also large, and the need for heavy punishment to prevent the recurrence of repetitive fraud." Attorney Jeon Hyo-cheol of Daeryun Law Firm, Mr. B's legal representative, pointed out, "The victim, who lost almost all of his money, is complaining of extreme pain, but no recovery has been achieved at all." He added, "In fact, even if the organization received investment money from victims, including Mr. B, it had no intention or ability to pay the promised profits," and emphasized, "The crime method was elaborate, including concealing the source of the damage, so severe punishment should have been imposed." Go Woori (wego@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] “300% profit expected”...imprisonment per day for stock reading fraud impersonating an investment expert (link)

Voice phishing crimes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It is no longer possible to deceive people with crude text or slurred speech like in the past. When dealing with actual criminal cases, many of the ‘collectors’, ‘delivery agents’, and ‘account and SIM providers’ who participate in voice phishing are either newcomers to society or housewives. After registering their resumes on an internet job search site, they are hired according to the working conditions offered online. At first, the job was unrelated to voice phishing, but later on, he was in charge of delivering goods in the name of ‘supporting work of other departments.’ In addition, the methods are becoming more diverse and sophisticated, such as impersonating a financial institution by offering to arrange a low-interest loan or contacting people under the pretext of compensating for damage from personal information leaks from a specific site. The problem is that even those who did not intend to participate in the crime from the beginning end up becoming suspects and defendants and are subject to criminal punishment. If it is revealed that the item delivered as ‘work support for other departments’ was an envelope containing damage money, and that the account provided by the person was used to collect money from the victims, investigative agencies often regard the person as an accomplice. On the other hand, the head of the voice phishing organization that planned and manipulated the actual crime is not easily caught in the investigative net due to its structure. Despite this structural vulnerability, legal judgment is very strict. According to recent trends, most claims that suspects and defendants were ‘not aware’ that their actions were voice phishing are not accepted. Given that warnings and promotions about voice phishing are widespread throughout society, and that account transfers and cash collection activities themselves have a somewhat abnormal structure, most cases are found guilty on the grounds that ‘there was at least some room for suspicion, but this was overlooked.’ However, it is questionable whether this uniform judgment truly complies with the principle of responsibility. Voice phishing techniques are becoming more sophisticated day by day, and is it fair to punish based on ‘recognizability’ even in cases that appear to be normal procedures? There is a need to more closely examine the individual circumstances, circumstances, and level of deception for those who are both actual victims and suspects.[View full article] [Expert Contribution] Voice phishing, boundaries between perpetrators and victims… Consider the principle of responsibility (link)

A man who was sent to a company under his wife's name to steal customer information he learned while working at the company for several years was acquitted. On the 16th of last month, the Ilsan West Police Station in Gyeonggi Province decided not to send Mr. A, who is in his 60s, on charges of violating the law on aggravated punishment of specific economic crimes (breach of trust). Mr. A has been involved in numerous contracts in charge of general management at Company B, a company specializing in new and renewable energy, from 2022 to last year. At that time, Mr. A was involved in external activities on behalf of the company and was directly involved in several contracts. Company B claimed that Mr. A made a profit by stealing customer information he learned during work to a corporation established in his spouse's name. Mr. A denied all charges. Company B was notified in advance that the spouse's company was participating in the business, and the business details of the two companies did not overlap, so there was no problem. The police decided not to send the case to Mr. A. As a result of conducting an investigation into the projects and contracts in which Mr. A participated while working at Company B, it was determined that charges such as breach of duty were not established. The police explained, “When looking at the business structure and profit relationship of Company B comprehensively, it is difficult to say that Mr. A used Company B’s key information unfairly,” adding, “Rather, it appears that Mr. A received help from a company under his spouse’s name to proceed with Company B’s business.” Lawyer Jeong-Hyeon Yoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A. He said, "In order for a criminal breach of trust to be established, it is established when a person who handles another person's affairs violates his/her duties for the benefit of himself or a third party and thereby causes property damage." He continued, "Considering the business structure, content, and progress of Company B, Mr. A's act of receiving fees in the name of consulting fees from related companies cannot be an act of inflicting property damage on Company B or an act of unfair benefit to Mr. A or a third party." He added, “Mr. A was not recognized as guilty of a crime, so he was able to receive a decision of non-transportation.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] They say the company's business partner information was stolen... The reason for not sending the ‘suspected employee’ (link)

Allegations of violation of duties and active participation in management breach of trust... “I only followed instructions” - the judge said, “I cannot be seen as actively involved in breach of duty… the dismissal is an excessive disciplinary action.” An employee who was fired for causing damage to the company by following unfair instructions from management was ruled unfair dismissal by the court. On the 10th of last month, the 14th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a man in his 50s, A, in his 50s, against transportation company B to cancel the unfair dismissal sanctions judgment. I received notice of dismissal from Company B for violating my duties and engaging in breach of trust. At the time, the executives pursued a contract to lend funds to affiliates, but Mr. A caused losses to the company by obeying their unfair instructions without securing appropriate collateral. Mr. A claimed unfair dismissal and applied for relief from the Local Labor Relations Commission, but it was rejected. He also requested a retrial from the National Labor Relations Commission, but it was dismissed again on the grounds that ‘grounds for disciplinary action exist and the amount of punishment is appropriate.’ Accordingly, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit to cancel the retrial decision. During the trial, Mr. A argued that the company's disciplinary action was excessive. He said that he was notified of the decisions made by the former management and the board of directors and only followed instructions, but was not aware of the specific circumstances, so it was difficult to determine that it was a breach of trust. The court ruled in Mr. A's favor. First, the court explained, “It is difficult to justify that the plaintiff, who is in charge of the business, followed the management’s decision without sufficiently reviewing or raising questions about the risks of lending, bond security, and collection plans,” and added, “The retrial ruling that he violated his professional duty not to respond to unfair instructions is reasonable.” However, the court said, “The management points out that the plaintiff participated in the breach of trust by former executives as a reason for disciplinary action, but it is difficult to say that the plaintiff devised or directly proposed an illegal means.” He added, “Dismissal is an overly excessive disciplinary action, as it is reasonable to say that it is recognized only to the extent of violation of job duties, excluding active participation in breach of trust.” Attorney Ki-eun Lee of Daeryun Law Firm, which represented Mr. A, said, “According to social norms, a dismissal is justified only when the employee is responsible to the extent that the employment relationship cannot continue, and this is judged by comprehensively considering the motive and circumstances of the misconduct, the status of the worker, etc.,” adding, “At the time, Mr. A was directly involved in management’s decision-making.” “I was not involved, and the difficulty of handling work contrary to orders due to my position was accepted, so it was recognized as excessive disciplinary action,” he explained. Reporter Kim Jong-cheol (jckim99@sportsseoul.com)[View full article] An employee who was fired following unfair instructions... Law “Recognition of unfair dismissal” (link)

A man who secretly borrowed money from his lover's cell phone and used the card was sentenced to prison. According to the legal community on the 5th, the Eastern Branch of the Busan District Court sentenced Mr. A, in his 30s, to three years in prison on charges of fraud using computers, etc. on the 24th of last month. Mr. A was accused of embezzling 170 million won by using the card and making loans without permission on 81 occasions using the mobile phone of Mr. B, with whom he was in a romantic relationship, in 2022. He was indicted. Mr. B claimed that Mr. A unlocked his cell phone and did this while he was asleep. He also claimed that after the crime was discovered, when he demanded repayment, Mr. B made threats, including throwing objects. On the other hand, Mr. A denied the charges, saying he received Mr. B's consent. The court ruled in Mr. B's favor. It was determined that Mr. A arbitrarily canceled the card notification service to prevent loan-related text messages from being sent to Mr. B, and that even after Mr. B changed his public certificate password, he re-registered the password again and received loans repeatedly. Because of Mr. A's unauthorized use of the card and the loan, Mr. B received notices of performance reminders, seizures, collections, and auctions from financial institutions, and was sued. However, Mr. A denied the crime and did not repay the damages, the court ruled. Attorney Jeon Hyeon-joo of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented him, explained, "Mr. A reassured Mr. B, who noticed the crime and demanded repayment, saying, 'I will repay the money,' but after that, the loan amount actually increased. Given that Mr. A set up an opt-out feature to prevent Mr. B from checking text messages containing authentication numbers or payment details, the court appears to have judged it to be a premeditated crime and sentenced him to prison." Busan reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Man sentenced to 3 years in prison for making credit card payments and borrowing money using his lover's cell phone while he was asleep (link)

Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 5th that it has signed a business agreement with ‘LMinds Co., Ltd.’, an AI-based voice recognition technology solution company, and will join forces to respond to legal risks and strengthen technology commercialization advice. The agreement ceremony, which was held at Daeryun Law Firm’s Seoul Yongsan branch office on the 29th of last month, was held at Daeryun Law Firm’s Yongsan branch office in Seoul. Key figures including CEO, Attorney Jeong Il-woo, L Mines CEO Yang Kwon-seok, and Director Park Gyeong-min attended. L Mines is an AI technology-based voice recognition business solution company that succeeded in developing Korea's first voice recognition-specific SoC. ‘Catch 24’, a scream recognition on-device AI solution, is used in various places such as public restrooms, walking trails, and industrial sites, and is being adopted by various companies such as Hyosung to prevent serious disasters. Based on such technological capabilities, LMinds was selected as a smart safety equipment product by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and also received the ‘2025 Jang Young-sil Award’. Recently, it is drawing a blueprint for targeting the global market, such as signing an export contract worth $1 million with Japan's Resta Holdings. Through this agreement, Daeryun Law Firm provides △ customized advice such as preliminary diagnosis of legal risks and information protection, △ legal review and contract support such as technology commercialization and licensing, △ joint research on algorithm ethics and platform legal response, △ legal support in the process of supplying AI solutions to public institutions, We plan to cooperate in △ promoting various joint seminars, workshops, and campaigns for the industry, and △ establishing a mutual cooperation system for global advancement. “L Mines is creating a safer society with highly reliable technology and product development, and is focusing on responsible use of data and ethical AI implementation,” he said. “Through the agreement with Daeryun, we will accelerate our leap forward as a global company and create a trusted technology ecosystem.” Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun Management, said, “As various legal problems are arising through AI technology, responding to and strengthening compliance has become more important than anything else.” He added, “By adding Daeryun’s legal safety net to LMinnes’ innovative technology, we will do our best to build a responsible business environment where both technology and people can feel safe.” Lawleader Reporter Son Dong-wook twson@lawleader.co.kr Daeryun Law Firm, MOU with L Mines Co., Ltd. Prevents major disasters with AI (Go here)

The CEO of a startup who was investigated by the prosecution on charges of issuing false tax invoices worth 400 million won was acquitted. On the 8th of last month, the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, in his 40s, who is suspected of violating the Punishment Act on Tax Defenders. Mr. A is suspected of having received false tax invoices stating that he had received materials and services from two companies, including a manufacturer, from October to December 2023. Mr. A is accused of receiving these false tax invoices. The total value of the tax invoices issued by the company amounted to 450 million won. According to Article 10 of the Tax Offenders Punishment Act, if a false tax invoice is issued without a physical transaction, one may be imprisoned for up to one year or fined up to twice the tax amount calculated by applying the value-added tax rate to the supply price. In the investigation by the investigative agency, Mr. A said, "When receiving materials from the manufacturer, only ownership is transferred and the actual He denied the charge, saying, "The goods were placed in the company's warehouse, leading to a misunderstanding that a false tax invoice was issued." He then explained, "The reason a cash transaction did not take place during the payment process was because the transaction was carried out in a way to write off the debt the company had previously borne." The prosecution decided not to indict Mr. A due to insufficient evidence, believing that the statements of the companies were consistent with Mr. A's statements and that there was a related contract, so there was no charge. The prosecution said, "Mr. A was transferred from the companies. He stated the reason for the disposition, saying, "There is no basis to conclude that a tax invoice was received without receiving goods or services." Mr. A's legal representative, attorney Jeong In-ho of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "After signing a contract with the manufacturer, Mr. A received the materials through revision of possession (transfer of ownership, maintenance of possession) rather than actual delivery." He explained, "In the case of other companies, Mr. A was unable to afford to pay the transaction price at the time, so he wrote an IOU and received the goods. However, this was also a matter of mutual agreement, and partial repayment was made." He added, "Because this case cannot be seen as creating a false tax invoice without a physical transaction, a non-prosecution should be imposed on Mr. A." Go Woori (wego@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] Startup CEO 'not guilty' on charges of issuing false tax invoices worth 400 million won... Why? (Shortcut)

A man in his 30s who was sent on charges of failing to disclose the existence of an existing loan during the transfer process of a cafe was cleared of charges. On the 7th of last month, the Busan District Prosecutors' Office decided not to indict Mr. A, who was accused of fraud. Mr. A was accused of intentionally hiding a business loan worth 60 million won received in the name of the cafe when transferring the cafe to the complainant, B, in October 2022. Mr. B acquired the cafe by transferring Mr. A's business registration number as is in order to inherit the existing reviews of the delivery app. Afterwards, while looking for a new loan, Mr. B was told that a loan had already been made using Mr. A's business number, so additional loans were not possible. Accordingly, Mr. B asked Mr. A to repay the existing loan in full, but when this was not accepted, he filed a complaint. Mr. A denied the fraud charges. Although he received a loan, he claimed that it was not for the purpose of passing it on to Mr. B. Mr. A explained, “The loan in question was made before taking over from Mr. B for purposes such as interior decoration of the cafe and operating funds,” and “At the time of signing the contract, we also revealed that it would be difficult to make additional loans in the name of the business.” The prosecution found that Mr. A was not guilty. The prosecution explained, “Considering that the complainant had run the cafe for about two years after signing the contract and looked for a loan, it cannot be concluded that whether or not the loan was a key aspect of the transaction at the time of the transfer contract. Since the suspect also repaid all of the loan, it is difficult to say that he intentionally deceived the complainant.” Attorney Kwon Ji-hye of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, said, “For a fraud to be established, there must be a direct causal relationship between the act of deception and the resulting property damage.” “It must be proven,” he said. “Because the loan in question was Mr. A’s personal debt, there was no obligation to notify, but Mr. A clearly demonstrated that he notified Mr. B of this and that no actual property damage occurred.” Digital Content Team[View full article] The owner who hid a 60 million won loan and took over the cafe...Prosecutors “No damage to the transferee” (Shortcut)

An acquaintance of mine with whom I had not been in contact for some time recently called. An acquaintance said that he got divorced by agreement last year due to his spouse's cheating, and that after the divorce by agreement, he sent child support for his minor daughter for 3 to 4 months, but has not been paying child support for several months. Surprisingly, cases of non-payment of child support, which the author is currently in charge of, have also occurred to acquaintances close to the author. According to the 'Single-Parent Family Survey' conducted by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family last year, 7 out of 10 (71.3%) reported never receiving child support from the non-custodial parent. Parents who raise their children alone after divorce have the burden of raising their children as well as their own lives, and the biggest problem is by far the financial problem. As the head of a single-parent family, you inevitably need money to raise a child, and any parent who has raised a child will know how frustrating and frustrating it would be if the ex-spouse avoided contact or unilaterally stopped paying child support. Ms. A, a working mother raising two children alone while divorcing by agreement due to her spouse's cheating, promised to pay child support of 700,000 won per child per month when divorcing by agreement with her ex-spouse, but her ex-husband did not pay child support every month, even when he did. A small amount of about 200,000 won was paid. In this situation, Ms. A can forcibly execute the ex-husband's property without a separate civil suit by using the child support burden record prepared and delivered in the divorce procedure by agreement as the right of execution. If the ex-husband does not comply, the family court may issue a direct payment order or performance order in accordance with Articles 63-2 and 64 of the Family Litigation Act. Violation of compliance orders may result in imprisonment and a fine of up to 10 million won. Imprisonment is a sanction that allows detention in a detention center for up to 30 days if the court's decision is not complied with. In addition, pursuant to Articles 21-3 to 21-5 of the Act on Securing and Supporting Compliance with Child Support, a driver's license suspension and ban on leaving the country can be requested for defaulters, and indirect sanctions such as disclosure of names are also possible. However, although the performance order and detention order are very powerful means of securing compliance, the other party may request that the child support defaulter be banned from leaving the country. If the delivery of legal documents is interrupted, it is very likely that the trial itself will be delayed as it is difficult for the hearing to be held, and execution is also not easy if you change your residence even after the citation has been cited. For this reason, the issue of child support is likely to become a long-term battle that will not end for several years, and those who claim payment are often emotionally exhausted before receiving the actual child support, so it is necessary to prepare sanctions that ensure speed and effectiveness. Due to this problem, the 'Act on Securing and Supporting Compliance with Child Support' was revised in 2021 to provide for defaulters who intentionally fail to pay child support, but who do not fulfill their child support obligations for less than one year despite receiving a detention order. The basis has been established for criminal punishment of imprisonment or a fine of up to 10 million won. From July 1, 2025, child support will be paid by the state first to children from single-parent families with a median income of 150% or less, and will be collected from non-custodians who are debtors of child support in accordance with the example of compulsory national tax collection. It is said that about 500 applications were received on the first day of implementation when the advance payment system was implemented. When going through a child support lawsuit, you realize that what the custodial parent ultimately wants is not an execution right such as a judgment or imprisonment or punishment of the other party, but the immediate deposit of the money needed to raise the child. In today's era of high prices, child support is not only a matter of children's well-being, but also a matter directly related to their survival, and is also the responsibility of parents who are bound to their children. Recently, while raising three children, including myself, I feel a lot of gratitude towards my mother, who was unable to buy even the right things for herself. Children will also one day come to know such parental love.[View full article] [Monday Column] Child support directly related to a child’s right to survive (link)