Press Coverage

Took on payment-transfer work but claimed "I thought it was a legitimate part-time job"Police: "Considering her experience as a fraud victim and the circumstances of her voluntary report… hard to recognize intent to aid"A housewife in her 40s who was working a side part-time job was investigated on suspicion of participating in a voice phishing crime, but the police decided not to refer the case, concluding there was no intent.The Paju Police Station announced on the 14th that it had decided not to refer the case, citing insufficient evidence, regarding Ms. A, a woman in her 40s who had been booked on suspicion of aiding fraud.The case began in 2025 when Ms. A, while doing a part-time job that boosted YouTube view counts, became entangled in what is known as a "team mission" scam.The company side guided her to deposit a certain amount first and then, upon performing the missions, she would be given back her principal plus profits; however, the investigation found that Ms. A instead suffered losses of several million won.Subsequently, saying it would help her recoup the losses, the company proposed a "cashier" job in which she would receive shopping-mall customers' payments on their behalf and remit them to designated accounts, and it was determined that Ms. A took on the work believing it to be normal settlement work.Over about a month, Ms. A remitted a total of about 448 million won across 171 occasions. However, when the funds were confirmed to be voice phishing victims' money, she came under police investigation on suspicion of being an accomplice to fraud.During the investigation, Ms. A claimed she had been entirely unaware of the criminal activity. She also stated that immediately after receiving a call from a financial institution saying her account appeared to have been used in a crime, she went to the police station herself and voluntarily reported it.The police made the decision not to refer the case, comprehensively considering that Ms. A had herself suffered about 4 million won in damage from the team mission scam, that her lack of financial knowledge made it difficult for her to fully grasp the structure of the crime, and that she reported it herself after recognizing the abnormal transactions.Attorney Wi Dae-young of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Ms. A, stated, "Recently, there have been not a few cases in which job seekers suffering financial hardship are deceived into simple settlement work and used for crimes," adding, "In voice phishing cases, the key issue is often whether the person tolerated the crime while knowing about it."He added, "We demonstrated the absence of intent through the fact that the client had first suffered fraud damage and was then used in the crime, as well as through the messages exchanged with the other party." [Read Full Article] \r"I Thought It Was Settlement Work"… Housewife in Her 40s Linked to Voice Phishing Cleared Without Referral\r (Go to Link)

Overview of the Issue Article 388 of the Commercial Act provides that where the amount of remuneration for directors is not fixed in the articles of incorporation, it shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. The Supreme Court has held that the scope of "remuneration" under this provision includes all consideration paid in return for a director's performance of duties—regardless of its designation, such as annual salary, allowances, bonuses, or special performance-based pay—and that retirement pay likewise constitutes "director's remuneration" as a payment made in consideration of the performance of duties during tenure. This functions as a mandatory provision intended to protect the interests of the company, its shareholders, and its creditors by preventing the abuse whereby directors pursue their personal interests in relation to their own remuneration.2. Major Types of Disputes and Key Response Points A. Payment of Director Remuneration Without a Shareholders' Meeting Resolution In its ruling of April 9, 2020 (Case No. 2018Da290436), the Supreme Court held that where a "special performance bonus" paid to a representative director constitutes "director's remuneration" under the Commercial Act but lacks a shareholders' meeting resolution, it must be treated as unjust enrichment and is subject to an obligation of return. In addition, the Supreme Court, in its ruling of September 10, 2015 (Case No. 2015Da213308), made clear that the burden of proving that a shareholders' meeting resolution existed rests with the director asserting the right to remuneration.Where the shareholders' meeting approves a ceiling on director remuneration while delegating the determination of the specific remuneration to the board of directors, and there is no board resolution, the Supreme Court held that it is lawful for the articles of incorporation or the shareholders' meeting to fix only the total amount or ceiling of officers' remuneration and to delegate the specific calculation matters, such as the amount payable to individual directors, to the board of directors (Supreme Court ruling of June 4, 2020, Case Nos. 2016Da241515, 241522).However, while recognizing the lawfulness of such delegation to the board, the Supreme Court restricted this by holding that a "comprehensive" delegation of matters concerning director remuneration to the board is not permitted (Supreme Court ruling of June 4, 2020, Case No. 2016Da241515), and further took the view that comprehensively delegating to the representative director the matter of director remuneration—which the articles of incorporation stipulate as a matter for shareholders' meeting resolution—is even more unlawful (see Seoul Central District Court ruling of October 20, 2022, Case No. 2020Gahap585514).In a case where the shareholders' meeting had approved only the ceiling of the total annual remuneration to be paid to all directors, no resolution whatsoever had been made regarding the specific remuneration payments to individual directors, and even a board resolution was absent, the lower courts held that such remuneration payments constituted unjust enrichment (Seoul Western District Court ruling of November 4, 2021, Case No. 2020Gadan306634; Seoul Southern District Court ruling of December 15, 2022, Case No. 2022Gadan237856).Restriction on Voting Rights When Resolving on the Remuneration of a Director-Shareholder: The Supreme Court recently held that not only with respect to individual remuneration amounts but also in resolutions setting the remuneration ceiling for all directors, the shareholder who is the director concerned qualifies as a person with a special interest and is therefore restricted from exercising voting rights (Supreme Court ruling of April 24, 2025, Case No. 2025Da210138). This is because the director remuneration ceiling determined at the shareholders' meeting inevitably has a significant impact on the subsequent determination of specific remuneration amounts for individual directors, and the calculation of remuneration for a director-shareholder is directly connected to that shareholder's private interests rather than being a matter concerning control of the company.B. Responding to Shareholder Derivative Suits to Hold Directors Liable Meaning of a Shareholder Derivative Suit: Where a company fails to hold a director liable of its own accord even though it has suffered damage due to the director's neglect of duty or the like, a shareholder may, in subrogation of the company, directly bring an action against that director.Requirements for Filing: Under Article 403, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Commercial Act, a shareholder holding shares equivalent to 1% or more of the total number of issued shares may, by a document stating the reasons therefor, demand that the company file an action to hold a director liable. If the company fails to file the action within 30 days from the date of receiving such demand, the shareholder concerned may file the action directly on behalf of the company (Article 403, Paragraph 3 of the Commercial Act).Shareholder Derivative Suit Regarding the Payment of Director Remuneration: Where the shareholders' meeting approved only the total ceiling of director remuneration and delegated the calculation of specific remuneration for individual directors to the board of directors, but a board resolution is absent, a shareholder may demand that the company file an action for damages arising from the unlawful remuneration payment; and if the company fails to file within 30 days, the shareholder may, in subrogation of the company, bring an action against the director concerned.3. Implications and Response Measures Disputes concerning director remuneration, arising from the mandatory nature of Article 388 of the Commercial Act, raise the question of whether subsequent ratification or implied consent is valid; and in particular—since, unless the company is a one-person company, a shareholders' meeting resolution cannot be replaced by the approval of a controlling shareholder alone—the inherent legal risks when a dispute arises are considerable.Even if an explicit board resolution regarding the payment of remuneration to an individual director was lacking, it is necessary to closely examine whether an increase rate or bonus payment guideline based on the same standards applied to ordinary employees was discussed and approved through an official corporate body such as the shareholders' meeting or the labor-management council, and to actively exercise the right of legal defense regarding the establishment and scope of any obligation to return unjust enrichment.Therefore, at the internal corporate level, proactive legal review that periodically checks whether all procedures related to director remuneration conform to the Commercial Act and the articles of incorporation is essential; and should a dispute materialize, one must respond promptly by establishing an optimized defense strategy through professional legal analysis of corporate law as a whole. [Read Full Article] \r Procedural Legitimacy of Director Remuneration Decisions and Corporate Legal Risk Management Strategies\r (Go to Link)

Following a recent incident in which an outsourced maintenance worker at a school in the Busan area illegally exported 220,000 files from faculty PCs to produce deepfake sexual exploitation material, there are growing calls for companies to comprehensively reexamine their systems for managing external personnel.This incident is regarded as a case that goes beyond a mere individual crime, exposing the responsibility for supervising outsourcing firms and the loopholes in information protection systems. In particular, concerns are being raised that similar data leak incidents could occur in corporate environments where external personnel frequently come and go, such as IT (information and communications) maintenance and facility management.According to the legal community on the 14th, Article 26 of the current Personal Information Protection Act stipulates that a company that has entrusted work must manage and supervise the trustee's personal information processing. The explanation is that if outsourced personnel access work PCs or cloud systems and leak information, the entrusting company will also find it difficult to escape liability.Attorney Jang Ji-woon of Daeryun Law Firm explained, "The courts place great importance on how faithfully the duty of management and supervision over the trustee was carried out," adding, "If a company has not properly established a control system, there is a high possibility that even the trustee's illegal acts will be connected to corporate liability."Attorney Jang expressed particular concern about the fact that a considerable number of companies conclude that they have fulfilled their legal obligations merely by drafting a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) during the outsourcing contract process. He pointed out, "An NDA can serve as a basis for assigning responsibility after an incident occurs, but it has limitations in proving that a management system was in place beforehand."He added, "In many cases where the outsourcing firm is small in scale or lacks capital, subsequent claims for damages are realistically difficult," noting that "in the end, there is a high possibility that the company itself will bear the financial and legal burden."Attorney Jang also emphasized that corporate security systems have recently been shifting from a "trust-based" approach to a "Zero-Trust" model. The explanation is that a structure is needed in which not only external personnel but also internal employees are systematically controlled and all records are retained.He advised, "Companies should mandatorily establish automatic screen locks for in-house PCs, data loss prevention (DLP) systems, and storage-media control solutions," adding, "A log management system that can objectively verify whether external personnel work alone and their file access records is also necessary."He further stated, "Rather than a simple damages clause, contracts should include a penalty clause that can be claimed without proving the actual amount of damage," and said, "Making it mandatory for outsourcing firms to subscribe to cyber-security liability insurance is also a realistic way to respond to the risk."Attorney Jang emphasized, "This incident ultimately shows that information protection is impossible through trust in people alone," stressing that "corporate security must be operated around a control system that is verifiable and leaves records, not around individual ethics." [Read Full Article] "Outsourced Worker Data Leak: Companies Also Bear Responsibility"…Busan Deepfake Case Sounds the Alarm (Go to Link)

"Child Sexual Exploitation Role-Play" Rampant on AI Chat PlatformsNumerous characters implying minors, such as baby bottles and school uniformsConsumed even by adolescents without restriction amid a lack of regulationAuthorities: "Reports received… monitoring obscene content" Amid growing concern over child sexual exploitation material using artificial intelligence (AI) deepfakes (advanced image-manipulation technology), sexual exploitation role-play is now being carried out outright on chat platforms.Beyond merely exposing inappropriate images, users are inducing sexual situations through real-time conversations with child characters, and these are being "realized."On the 14th, the AI-based Chat Platform A had numerous characters that appear to be minors publicly available, such as a baby holding a bottle, a schoolgirl in uniform, and a small-framed girl. In some cases, sexual acts were even depicted in the promotional images.Specific age ranges such as "elementary school student" and "12-year-old girl" are set, and some characters are promoted with images of young girls in underwear.There are characters with descriptions such as "was called a genius child actor since kindergarten and is still active now as an elementary school student," or characters set as teenage students sitting in a classroom.These AI characters are designed to respond immediately to users' demands.When a greeting of "Hello" was sent to a character on Platform A described as 140 cm tall, weighing 25 kg, and having "a body as small as an elementary school student," a situational message was transmitted stating, "She lightly grabbed the hem of what looked like a school uniform skirt and began to spin and circle around you." The character then continued the inappropriate role-play, sending messages explicitly demanding sexual acts.Platform A is a chat platform where users can converse with AI-created characters. There is no age restriction for sign-up, and it is limited to those aged 14 and over only at the profile-setting stage.Users can create AI characters themselves or converse in real time with characters made by others. It is used for various purposes such as dating, counseling for worries, and role-playing. Basic use is free, and with paid subscriptions, high-performance AI models can be applied to sustain long and elaborate conversations.The problem is that some users are abusing this for sexual conversations or sexual exploitation role-play. Because age, appearance, personality, and the like can be set in detail when creating characters, many characters reminiscent of minors—such as those in school uniforms or with childlike body types—are being generated.As the controversy spread, Platform A announced on the 12th, "We will sequentially make private the characters that induce inappropriate depictions in an appearance that could be mistaken for a minor or while wearing a school uniform."However, even after the announcement, a considerable number of minor-set characters remain searchable and available for conversation. While specific keywords or images can be blocked, it is difficult to control in real time the sexual role-play itself that users cunningly induce through conversation with the AI.In online communities gathering Platform A users, methods to evade the crackdown are even being shared.Referring to "nong-kae"—slang meaning characters with the body type of a young girl—users warned one another, saying things like "Are you going to delete your nong-kae in advance?" and "Don't relax just because it hasn't been made private yet," sharing the status of minor-character deletions and detections.An official of the Broadcasting, Media and Communications Standards Commission stated in a written inquiry to Yonhap News on the 13th, "Reports related to Platform A have currently been confirmed," adding, "The Commission independently monitors obscene information. If content violating current laws is confirmed on the site, we plan to take appropriate action through deliberation."But it is not only Platform A.On Platform B, promotions use a chat titled "Your Daughter," evoking a father-daughter relationship, or feature young-girl characters with bodies markedly smaller than adult males, with images depicting sexual acts.In addition, on Platforms C, D, and E, chat characters set as 10-year-old elementary students or 17-year-old high school students in school uniforms have appeared.Such exploitation material is a representative type of harmful content running rampant amid the lack of regulation on AI content.Currently, Grok, the AI chatbot of X (formerly Twitter) owned by Elon Musk, stands at the center of a controversy over generating sexual images, and sensational, over-the-top AI content such as "fruit affair dramas"—which anthropomorphize fruits and the like to depict adultery and unethical acts—is also spreading.Adolescents can also consume such content without any particular restriction.Attorney Heo Jung-won of Daeryun Law Firm explained, "Even for AI-generated images or virtual characters, if they are clearly perceived as children or adolescents through school uniforms, a childlike appearance, a student setting, and the like, and depict the sexual acts stipulated in Article 2, Item 4 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Adolescents Against Sex Offenses, they may be subject to punishment."However, Attorney Heo pointed out, "Under current law, the boundary is ambiguous as to whether even drawings or cartoons that simply depict children and adolescents in image form are included as subject to punishment, or whether only computer-graphics-level representations that look like real children apply," adding, "It is necessary to supplement the criteria for judging the 'clarity' of being perceived as a child or adolescent." [Read Full Article] [Shot!] Dressed in School Uniforms and Even Sexual Demands… (Go to Link) Dressed in School Uniforms and Even Sexual Demands…"Child Sexual Exploitation Role-Play" Rampant on AI Chat Platforms (Go to Link) "Child Sexual Exploitation" Using AI Deepfakes…Chat Platforms Where Role-Play Unfolds (Go to Link)

The head of a Busan-area shipbuilding company, who was sued on suspicion of fraud amounting to several hundred million won in connection with the settlement of subcontract payments by a subcontractor, was cleared at the police investigation stage.According to the Busan Saha Police Station on the 15th, a decision not to refer the case was made regarding Mr. B, the head of shipbuilding Company A, who had recently been booked on fraud charges.Mr. B was suspected of having, from June to November 2024, deceived Mr. C, the operator of a subcontractor, by promising to pay work fees if C carried out patrol-boat assembly work, thereby swindling property gains worth about 700 million won.Mr. C claimed, "Mr. B deceived me about the amount of the main contract with the prime contractor, and when I recalculated the work fees, there was a difference of several hundred million won from the amount actually paid."However, Mr. B's side rebutted, "We accepted Mr. C's request to secure his profits and raised the unit price by more than double compared to the previous contract, and to prevent labor-cost arrears we even gave advances, providing maximum convenience," adding, "If anything, it was Mr. C who disregarded the contracting agreement."The police accepted Mr. B's argument. The police investigation confirmed that the individual construction contracts between both sides had been drawn up through normal procedures and that, before the contract, Mr. B had clearly informed Mr. C of the actual site and scope of work.Regarding the charges of deception and swindling as well, the police stated, "The progress payments made each month were calculated and paid after Mr. C and Mr. C's on-site manager directly verified the work rate, so it is difficult to view this as fraud." The police added, "Even according to the analysis of the account transaction records, most of the progress payments Mr. B received from the prime contractor appear to have been normally paid to Mr. C's side."Attorney Jung Woo-young of Daeryun Law Firm, who handled Mr. B's legal representation, explained, "In a subcontracting relationship, a contractor has no legal obligation to disclose the full amount of its contract with the prime contractor to the subcontractor, and concealing it does not constitute the 'act of deception' required for fraud," adding, "Because the complainant disregarded the agreed fixed unit price and put forward a unilateral hourly-rate calculation, we were able to clear the injustice by promptly demonstrating objective circumstances such as the settlement records from the early stage of the investigation." [Read Full Article] \rAfter Doubling the Subcontract Unit Price, "Pay More"…Fraud-Suspected CEO Cleared of Charges\r(Go to Link)

[Interview] Attorney Kim Young-soo of Daeryun Law Firm: A copy of the warrant is issued to the suspect, and references are restricted… “Logical contradiction” “While the right to defense is guaranteed to suspects suspected of a crime, the issuance of warrant copies to third-party references is restricted due to confidentiality of the investigation. The convenience of the investigation cannot take precedence over the basic rights of the people.” Kim Young-soo, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, criticized the investigative agency’s practice of executing search and seizure warrants. The constitutional petition filed by Attorney Kim recently passed the preliminary review of the Constitutional Court and was referred to the full court (trial on the merits). This is a meaningful result that allows us to look again at the investigative agency's forced investigation practices and the court's passive interpretation from a constitutional perspective after the full implementation of the court member system last March. A tribunal refers to a system in which court trials are subject to constitutional appeal adjudication. Attorney Kim, who served as the chief judge of the Navy Military Court and the Deputy General Judge of the High Military Court of the Ministry of National Defense and the first director of the Navy Human Rights Center, is a legal expert who has been involved in the military judicial system for 22 years. He filed this constitutional petition based on the procedural limitations he experienced when he was searched and seized as a direct reference in 2022. Attorney Kim pointed out the procedural limitations he experienced during the special prosecutor's search and seizure in 2022. The special prosecutor searched and seized him as a witness in the case of Sergeant Lee Ye-ram's death, but in reality, he explained, it was a forced investigation with the intention of turning him into a suspect. He recalled, "Even though I was not involved in the case at the time, the investigation team only made me read dozens of pages of warrants at the scene and did not even allow me to issue copies or take notes." He went on to emphasize that he was restricted in exercising his right to procedural defense, saying, "I requested to see the warrant again to prevent the conversation or private information I had with the client from being exposed during the cell phone forensics process, but I was refused." Forensics is an investigative technique that finds clues to crimes by restoring data stored in digital devices such as smartphones and PCs. Attorney Kim pointed out that the judiciary's passive interpretation of the current law is undermining the principle of due process guaranteed by the Constitution due to the absence of a copy of the warrant and the obstruction of the process of appeal for an illegal investigation. While the right to access warrants is widely recognized for suspects suspected of crimes in order to guarantee their right to defense, it is pointed out that it is a logical contradiction to strictly limit the issuance of copies to unsuspecting witnesses on the grounds of investigative confidentiality. There was also concern that without a copy of the warrant, the means to check the compulsory disposition of investigative agencies virtually disappears. The core of warrantism is that searches must only be conducted within the subject and period authorized by the judge. Attorney Kim said, “Without a copy of the warrant, there is no way to clearly check on the spot whether the investigative agency is searching within the scope permitted by the court.” He added, “Even if you later try to file a quasi-appeal against the illegal search and seizure, it is difficult to even specify the reason for the illegality because there is no warrant.” A quasi-appeal is a procedure to request cancellation or change from the court in response to dissatisfaction with an investigation agency's disposition, such as search and seizure. The reason the Constitutional Court referred this case to the full court was because it judged that an in-depth discussion was needed on the search and seizure procedure and the issue of guaranteeing the public's right to defense. It is significant in that a check on the investigative agencies' compulsory investigation practices has been implemented, called a constitutional appeal. Attorney Kim hoped that this judgment would be a milestone that puts a brake on the expedient use of warrants by investigative agencies. He said, “This should serve as an opportunity for the National Assembly and the courts to carefully consider human rights and legislate and adjudicate,” and added, “If basic rights are restricted by state public power, the right to confirm and defend the legal basis must be guaranteed.” Lastly, he did not forget to make a request to citizens who will be unfairly investigated by investigative agencies. Attorney Kim advised, “At the scene of a compulsory investigation, we must not be intimidated by state power and confidently demand our rights through due process.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] Controversy over search and seizure of witnesses... “Investigation convenience cannot take precedence over people’s basic rights” (Shortcut)

Lawyer Kim Young-soo of Daeryun Law Firm filed a complaint against the Supreme Court and was a witness in the death of Sergeant Lee Ye-ram... A copy of the warrant was not received at the time of search, so the quasi-appeal and re-appeal were dismissed... “If you are not a suspect, there is no obligation to issue a warrant.” “The witness is executed without knowing the English text, regardless of his or her own actions.” The full panel of the Constitutional Court will decide whether the practice of not providing a copy of a warrant when an investigative agency searches and seizes a witness who is not a suspect is unconstitutional. According to the legal community on the 13th, the designated tribunal of the Constitutional Court decided on the 12th to refer the case filed against the Supreme Court by lawyer Kim Young-soo of Daeryun Law Firm to the full court. The case originated when Special Prosecutor Ahn Mi-young's team, which investigated the death of the late Sergeant Lee Ye-ram in 2022, seized and searched the residence and smartphone of Attorney Kim, who was a reference, and refused to issue a copy of the warrant. According to Daeryun, Attorney Kim pointed out in the application submitted to the Constitutional Court that the investigative agency's interpretation of the law is in direct violation of the constitutional right to equality and the principles of due process. Attorney Kim emphasized, “A suspect is a person who has become the subject of an investigation due to his or her actions and is subject to the execution of a warrant, whereas a reference person is executed without knowing the meaning of the case, regardless of his or her actions.” He also emphasized, “The reference person should be seen as being in a position where the principles of due process and the right to seek trial are procedurally guaranteed,” adding, “In particular, he pointed out the realistic problem that if there is no copy of the warrant, the actual right to defense of the confiscated person is neutralized.” Attorney Kim explained the situation at the time, saying, “The applicant cannot remember the contents of the dozens of pages of the warrant, so if a copy was not possible, he requested that he be allowed to film the warrant or make notes on its main contents, but this was also rejected.” He then complained, “It was not possible to confirm whether the execution of the search and seizure warrant was carried out within the legal scope in relation to the facts of the crime stated in the warrant.” He also strongly refuted the claim of ‘secrecy in the investigation’ that the investigative agency uses as the main justification for refusing to issue copies. He pointed out, “There is no difference between investigation secrets disclosed by presenting a search and seizure warrant and investigation secrets disclosed by issuing a copy.” Furthermore, he strongly criticized, “Giving a copy of the warrant to a suspect suspected of a crime but denying it to an innocent reference on the grounds of confidentiality of the investigation is an incoherent action.” Previously, the court ruled that the investigative agency had no obligation to issue a copy of the warrant to a third party other than the suspect in the pre-indictment investigation stage, so it dismissed Attorney Kim’s quasi-appeal and re-appeal one after another. The Constitutional Court plans to make a final decision on whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are unconstitutional and whether Attorney Kim's fundamental rights are violated through a hearing by the full bench. Namgoong Min-gwan (kunggija@edaily.co.kr)[View full article] Edaily - "'Passing a copy of the warrant' when conducting a search and seizure of a witness is unconstitutional"... Constitutional Court member receives judgment (Shortcut) News 1 - Three cases of court members being transferred to the main court... Going beyond ‘procedures’ and judging ‘unconstitutional legal interpretations’ as well (link) Kukje Newspaper - The Constitutional Court considers whether the investigative practice of not providing copies of warrants to witnesses is unconstitutional (link)

If you were accused of a sex crime after a night of drinking while your memory was blurry, you would be embarrassed. The first concern that comes to mind at this time is 'Can a person be punished even in a situation where he or she has no memory?' In fact, many court cases occur in situations where memory is disrupted while drunk. In particular, when the victim claims, 'I have no memory, but I feel like I was harmed,' the suspect's response becomes very complicated. From the suspect's perspective, the first legal standard to pay attention to is the credibility of the statement. Investigative agencies and courts closely examine whether the victim's statement is specific and consistent. We also review whether the victim's claim matches objective circumstances such as call records and travel routes. Even if the victim claims to have “lost memory,” the charge will not be acknowledged if the circumstances surrounding it are unnatural. Therefore, the suspect must focus on finding contradictions in the other party's statements. The judgment of 'impossibility to resist' is also a point that the suspect must actively defend. This is because quasi-rape, etc., can only be established if it is acknowledged that the victim was in a state of being unable to resist. However, simply being intoxicated does not immediately determine inability to resist. The court closely examines the victim's actions, conversations, and movement routes. For example, if there are circumstances in which the victim continued the conversation normally or moved on his own, this will have a significant impact on the judgment. In the end, the key is not the fact of being 'drunk' per se, but the specific proof of what the state was at the time. Responding to sexual crime cases is not a matter of piecemeal facts, but a battle of the entire trend. A conclusion cannot be reached based solely on one side’s one-sided argument. You can win only when your actions before and after the incident and objective data are connected into a single story. If you want to get rid of unfair charges, it is not enough to simply plead that there was no intent. It is essential to organize the situation in detail chronologically and secure data to support it. Attorney Park Jeong-gu of Daeryun Law Firm explained, “It is easy to think that statements are everything in a sex crime case, but in reality, whether they match the evidence is much more important.” In particular, it was emphasized that in cases of sexual crimes that occurred while drinking, the key issue is whether the context continues uninterruptedly and naturally rather than whether there are fragmentary memories. He added, “The court judges guilt or innocence based on objective proof of facts, not whether the suspect remembers.” He added, “If you are being wrongly accused, you should avoid emotional responses, and it is important to respond thoroughly with objective data and consistent explanations with the help of legal experts from the beginning of the investigation.”[View full article] When it comes to sex crimes under the influence, ‘objective circumstances’ rather than fragmentary memories determine the outcome (link)

Attorney Kim Min-soo of Daeryun Law Firm: The Road Traffic Act stipulates that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher is the standard for driver's license cancellation. If a higher figure than this is confirmed during the drunk driving crackdown, the majority will decide that the result cannot be reversed and give up. However, driver's license cancellation is not decided solely by mechanical numbers. This is because the facts on which administrative dispositions are based must be supported by objective evidence. Recently, the Incheon District Court made a reasonable ruling reaffirming this legal principle. The client was caught drunk while driving a two-wheeled vehicle, and his blood alcohol content was 0.418%. This figure is five times higher than the standard for license cancellation, and is a dangerous level that is accompanied by decreased consciousness or breathing difficulties. The police revoked the driver's license based on this. The client applied for an administrative trial separately from the criminal case, but it was also dismissed, and an administrative lawsuit was filed. The lawyers in charge of the lawsuit checked the CCTV at the time to understand the situation at the time. The client drove according to the traffic lights and was also seen steering the wheel to avoid a taxi that suddenly appeared at the intersection. There were also circumstances that were far from intoxicated, such as having a clear conversation with a police officer who was dispatched after being caught drunk. Based on this, the lawyers in charge emphasized that the breathalyzer test values ​​did not correspond to the actual state at the time. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the client by ruling to cancel the driver's license cancellation. This was the result of a comprehensive examination of the contradictions between the breathalyzer test values ​​and the actual circumstances at the time. The court found that based on the submitted evidence alone, there was no evidence to admit that the client drove the vehicle while intoxicated more than 0.08%. This is an example that clearly shows that more serious administrative measures must be based on objective data and legal procedures. In practice, there are many cases where response is given up simply because the drunkenness control number was high. However, the obvious discrepancy between mechanical breathalyzer test values ​​and actual driving conditions is a critical basis for destroying the reliability of the results. Therefore, it is most important to quickly secure objective data to prove the actual situation, such as a black box containing the driving route at the time of the crackdown or conversations with nearby CCTV police officers. If you do not succumb to the pressure of the breathalyzer test results and legally prove the gap between the actual truth and the data, you can be relieved from the harsh punishment of license revocation. In particular, driver's license revocation is often directly related to livelihood. Therefore, if there are unfair circumstances, rather than concluding that “the shame has come out and it is over,” efforts should be made to uncover the substantive truth by carefully reconstructing the objective circumstances with legal experts. ● Contributions by external writers may differ from our editorial direction. Gyeonggi Ilbo webmaster@kyeonggi.com[View full article] [Contribution] Driver's license revocation canceled despite 0.418% breathalyzer test reading... Reasonable Judgment (Shortcut)

A crafts instructor who was accused of stealing other people's educational content and teaching methods without permission was cleared of charges in a police investigation. According to the legal community on the 12th, Guro Police Station in Seoul decided not to send A, a woman in her 40s, who was booked on charges of leaking trade secrets and violating copyright law on the 2nd of last month. Person A was accused of using lecture materials acquired in the process of being entrusted with instructor management duties from Mr. B, an education program producer last year, in her own lectures without permission. Ms. B. Mr. B claimed that various materials such as educational proposals, textbooks, and activity sheets were delivered to Mr. A, and that Mr. A subsequently stole these materials without permission to create lecture content and imitated the lecture method using audio-visual materials. Although it is true that Mr. A received the materials from Mr. B, he claimed that he had previously taught classes using audio-visual materials. In addition, it was explained that the activity sheet used in the lecture was not an unauthorized use of Mr. B's data, but was drafted using artificial intelligence (AI) and composed in a universal way. The police determined that the material used by Mr. A in the lecture had already been distributed to numerous instructors and students at many educational institutions and used as actual teaching materials, so it was only public data and did not constitute a trade secret leak. It was held that the teaching method using audio-visual materials, the order of class composition, etc. fall into the area of ​​ideas and are not subject to copyright protection. Attorney Daewon Kim of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, "Copyright applies not to the abstract idea itself, but to specific and detailed expressions. We were able to get a decision not to send the case by actively explaining that the content that Mr. B took issue with was nothing more than an idea that anyone could borrow because it is a universal method for education." Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] Instructor accused of “copying teaching methods” not sent back… Police: “Ideas are not subject to copyright protection” (Shortcut)