Press Coverage

[CU Agreement, Direct Negotiation Test Bench ④ End] A chain of waves can be felt [Editor's note] The labor-management agreement surrounding CU logistics was reached and the conflict was resolved. The effectiveness of the agreement and the normalization of logistics are now key. We look at the meaning of government intervention, the logistics recovery situation, and the impact it will have on other labor disputes. With the logistics dispute between BGF Logistics and Korea Freight Forwarders temporarily resolved, attention is focused on the impact it will have on the logistics industry as a whole. In an industry where multi-level consignment structures are common, as cases of high-ranking logistics corporations engaging in direct negotiations are emerging, demands for primary negotiation from labor unions of other logistics companies ahead of wage and collective agreements (wage agreements) in the second half of the year are expected to spread. According to the logistics industry on the 29th, the CU branch of the Confederation of Democratic Trade Unions (KCTU), the Public Transport Workers' Union Freight Solidarity Headquarters (Cargo Solidarity), the convenience store branch, and BGF Logis held a meeting at the Jinju branch of the Ministry of Employment and Labor at 5 a.m. on this day. A tentative agreement was reached on a collective agreement. BGF Logis is a logistics subsidiary of BGF Retail, which operates convenience store CU. The day before, Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon and Rep. Kim Joo-young, secretary of the ruling party in the National Assembly's Climate, Energy, Environment and Labor Committee, visited the site and mediated negotiations. The agreement includes a 7% increase in transportation fees, guaranteed paid vacation four times a year, immunity from civil and criminal charges and cancellation of provisional injunctions for cargo unions, and compensation for the families of deceased union members. Both sides initially decided to hold a signing ceremony at 11 a.m. on this day, but the schedule for the signing ceremony has not been finalized as detailed coordination has not been completed. What the industry is paying attention to is the structure of negotiations. In the early stages of this dispute, the Korean Freight Solidarity pointed out BGF Retail, the main body of CU's franchise business, as a negotiating party, but as the strike continued to prolong, it took a step back by accepting BGF Logis, which is in charge of logistics, as a negotiating party. As a result, this agreement was reached not with BGF Retail, the primary distribution contractor, but with BGF Logis, a top logistics corporation, taking the lead. CU Logistics is usually operated in a multi-level structure consisting of BGF Logis, a logistics center, a local transport company, and individual delivery drivers. In this structure, the direct user and the higher-level corporation with actual operational influence are separated under the contract, so there are conflicting interpretations as to how far the negotiating partner will be viewed in the event of a dispute. Initially, the government also took the position that this issue should be viewed carefully in relation to the usability issue, but the atmosphere changed as confusion on the ground increased due to the prolonged strike. On the 20th, at the protest site in front of the Jinju Logistics Center in Gyeongnam Province, a truck (replacement truck) hit union members, killing one person and injuring two others. In addition to the long-term strike, on-site fatal accidents and damage to stores coincided with the Minister of Employment and Labor and the ruling party members visiting the negotiation site to mediate, and it is interpreted that BGF Logis directly participated in the negotiations in this process. The bases of less than 10% of union members were blocked... The controversy over recognition of representativeness and the fact that key supply chain bases have been shut down only with low organizational ratios are also attracting attention from industry and labor circles. Of the 5,500 CU delivery drivers, it is estimated that 7 to 8%, or 380 to 440, belong to the cargo union. Although its proportion compared to the total article is not large, it is analyzed that negotiation power has increased with the blockade of the Jincheon Logistics Center, which serves as a national hub. Controversy over representativeness also remains. Criticism is being raised about whether it is appropriate for the union to act as the de facto representative bargaining agent in a situation where less than 10% of all delivery drivers belong to the Korea Freight Workers' Union. Issues are also raised regarding whether there was sufficient consultation regarding representation with non-union members and other stakeholders during the negotiation process. The business structure unique to the convenience store industry is also considered a factor in increasing pressure for an early settlement. Convenience store logistics has a high proportion of fresh food, event products, and daily delivery products, so even short-term delivery disruptions can lead to a decrease in sales. Some in the industry estimate that BGF Retail's damage due to this incident is in the range of 5 to 6 billion won. As the situation has entered a controlled phase, the company is faced with the follow-up task of recovering damage to franchisees and preparing support measures. BGF Retail made an official statement on this day and emphasized, "We will closely examine the damage situation and prepare support measures for franchisees as soon as possible." This settlement is expected to have a significant impact on labor-management relations in the logistics industry in the future. As there remains a precedent of higher-level corporations engaging in direct negotiations due to the burden of prolonging disputes, there are observations that demands for similar methods of negotiation are likely to spread during the wage and collective bargaining phase in the second half of the year. There is a possibility that it will be mentioned as a reference case during the discussion on the revision of Articles 2 and 3 of the Trade Union Act, which is pending in the National Assembly. However, some in the legal community and industry are cautiously arguing that this case should not be broadly interpreted as an issue of recognition of the usability of primary contractors in the logistics industry as a whole. Bang In-tae, lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, said, “In this case, BGF Logis, not BGF Retail, entered into negotiations as a user,” and added, “We need to be cautious in viewing this as an example of acknowledging the use of a primary contract across the logistics industry.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] BGF-Cargo Solidarity Agreement, Will It Be a Signal for ‘Direct Negotiations’? (Shortcut)

Lawyer: "Retaliation agency clients are also instigators... they are punished the same way as executors." Retaliation agency services, which take revenge on others in exchange for money, have become an underground industry and are threatening the social safety net. If retaliatory crimes in the past were accidental acts caused by emotional conflicts between the parties, recently, a warning light has been turned on as they have evolved into an organized business form with division of request and execution. According to the legal community on the 28th, retaliatory agency services that perform location tracking, distribution of personal information, and throwing of residential dirt through anonymous channels such as Telegram and open chat are spreading. The methods are becoming more elaborate, such as disguised employment at a delivery platform outsourcing company and stealing the victim's residence information, and are taking the form of a branch organization in which people who have no contact with the victim are involved in crimes through money. Recently, retaliation agencies have begun to be linked to large criminal organizations. There have also been cases where voice phishing organizations request retaliation agencies to prevent victims from reporting to the police or to pressure them into withdrawing reports. Private retaliation is being used as a tool to protect the profits of a criminal organization. Attorney Kim Yun-joong of the Daeryun Law Firm said, "Retaliation is a serious crime that combines violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and criminal instigation." Even clients who did not commit the crime themselves are classified as instigators under criminal law and receive the same punishment as those who committed the crime. If you are involved in a voice phishing organization, you will be charged with the crime of organizing and operating a criminal group, and if the purpose of hindering reporting is proven, it will be treated as a retaliation crime and severely punished under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (Special Act). Crime experts analyze that due to the nature of anonymous platforms, tracking is difficult and the structure of one-time replacement of executors and maintaining the organization is increasing crime. Attorney Kim emphasized, “In line with the speed at which the crime structure is becoming more sophisticated, it is urgent for investigative agencies to establish an organizational-level investigation and legal response system,” and added, “Victims should actively utilize the public security system, including requests for personal protection, from the beginning.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] If you give money, they rob you and throw dirt on you... Retaliation agency, industrialized by combining with voice phishing (Click here)

When faced with charges of sexual crime, what determines whether an actual crime is established is whether or not the requirements set by the law are met. Criminal punishment is possible only based on laws enacted by the National Assembly in accordance with the principle of legality of crime, and Article 12 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Criminal Act prohibit punishment that is not in accordance with the law and due process. Therefore, simply receiving a charge and establishing a crime under the law should be approached as separate issues. The standard for determining whether a specific act constitutes a crime is 'correspondence to the elements.' This is the process of verifying whether all of the behavioral requirements stipulated by law are met. For example, in the case of the crime of forcible indecent assault under Article 298 of the Criminal Act, all three requirements - assault or intimidation, an act directed at a person, and indecent assault - must be proven to be established. If even one of these elements is missing, the person cannot be punished as a forcible molestation under the law. Analysis of the elements is also essential in recent cases of obscene acts using communication media (prostitution), which frequently occur. According to Article 13 of the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Violence, the purpose of satisfying sexual desire and the ‘reach’ of media that causes sexual shame are conditions for establishment. Even if a sexual message is written, if it is not actually transmitted and reached the other person, a crime will not be established due to the failure to meet the structural requirements. In many cases, acquittal in sexual crime cases is due not only to the absence of the act but also to the lack of legal structural requirements. Rather than being intimidated by the facts of the charges, suspects should closely analyze whether the charges presented by the prosecution fully meet the legal requirements. The process of verifying each legal requirement is the most basic and core step in establishing a sexual crime defense strategy. Therefore, from the beginning of the investigation, it is necessary to professionally review with a defense attorney whether your actions meet the criminal requirements specified in the law. We must recognize that meeting legal requirements is a critical criterion that determines the establishment of a crime, and block the possibility of unnecessary criminal punishment through logical and thorough legal responses from the early stage. Help: Attorney Youngjin Ahn, Daeryun Law Firm[View full article] The key to deciding whether to be innocent of a sexual crime is ‘component requirements’… We must calmly consider whether legal requirements are met (link)

[CU agreement, testbed for direct negotiation ②] Minister Jin Du-jin... Other labor-management relations equity issues [Editor's Note] An agreement between labor and management over CU Logistics was reached and the conflict was resolved. The effectiveness of the agreement and the normalization of logistics are now key. We look at the meaning of government intervention, the logistics recovery situation, and the impact it will have on other labor disputes. The logistics dispute between the CU branch of the convenience store branch of the Korea Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), the Public Transport Workers' Union, and the Freight Solidarity Headquarters (Cargo Solidarity) was resolved after 24 days of strike. As the ministers of the relevant ministries and ruling party members personally visit the negotiation sites and begin mediation, discussions surrounding the extent to which the government will be involved in future labor-management disputes at industrial sites are expected to intensify. According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the logistics industry on the 29th, the CU branch of the Korea Freight Solidarity Convenience Store Branch and BGF Logis tentatively agreed to a collective agreement through the fifth round of negotiations at 5 a.m. on the same day. The agreement included a 7% increase in transportation fees, guaranteed paid vacation once a quarter four times a year, immunity from civil and criminal charges for the cargo union, and cancellation of the injunction prohibiting business interruption. BGF Logis and Korea Freight Alliance decided to hold a signing ceremony at 11 a.m. on this day and sign the agreement, but time was delayed in the process of coordinating detailed items, and the final agreement was postponed. The two sides negotiated all night long at the Jinju Employment and Labor Office in Gyeongnam, starting at 8 p.m. the previous evening. Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-hoon and Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Ju-young also attended the scene and supported mediation. With the conclusion of the agreement, the blockade of major logistics bases such as Jinju and Jincheon will be lifted, and BGF Retail plans to begin 100% normalization of logistics during the week. The labor community is evaluating this settlement positively in that the protracted dispute has entered a phase of settlement. In a situation where, in addition to the prolonged strike, a fatal accident occurred on site, the government's role in mediation seems to be meaningful. The management community is reacting cautiously regarding the scope of the government's involvement in the field. There is a view that the presence of a minister and a sitting member of the National Assembly at the negotiation site in a situation where the main contractor's obligation to negotiate is not clearly defined may have placed a significant burden on the management. The management community is cautious about the level of intervention... The special nature of the case is considered to be the reason behind the government's mediation of the Yellow Envelope Act. On the 20th, a truck hit union members at a rally in front of the convenience store CU Jinju Logistics Center, killing one person and injuring two others. Afterwards, the blockade continued to the Jincheon Logistics Center, which serves as a national hub, and some franchisees responded that sales had fallen by 30%. There is a possibility that the government has begun making on-site adjustments in consideration of the social costs of a prolonged situation. There are also critical views surrounding the consistency of the government's response. The Ministry of Employment and Labor initially stated that this issue was not related to the Yellow Envelope Act, but after the fatal accident, the level of response changed, with the minister directly mediating at the negotiation site. It is also of interest whether this mediation is in line with the government's labor policy, which advocates improving the dual structure of the labor market. If a similar dispute occurs in the future, it is expected that the key issue will be the standards and fairness under which the government will decide whether to intervene. As multi-level consignment structures are common due to the nature of the logistics industry, it is highly likely that discussions will continue surrounding the scope of negotiation responsibilities of higher-level corporations and the mediation role of the government. This case is expected to have a significant impact on wages and collective agreements (wage agreements) in the logistics and distribution industry in the second half of the year. As a precedent is established for top logistics corporations to engage in direct negotiations, there are observations that unions in other industries may make similar demands. There remains controversy over the representativeness of the union, which accounts for less than 10% of the total number of delivery drivers, as the de facto representative negotiating body. Ultimately, this settlement is evaluated as an example that goes beyond a single logistics dispute and exposes the scope of the government's intervention in labor disputes, the negotiation responsibility of upper-level operators, and the negotiating power and representativeness of minority unions. However, some are cautious, saying that it is difficult to view this agreement as a precedent in which the user rights of primary contractors are immediately recognized. Bang In-tae, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm, said, "In this case, BGF Logis, not BGF Retail, entered into negotiations," and added, "It is difficult to view this as a case where the use of outsourced contracts across the logistics industry was immediately recognized." He added, "If the number of cases in which the relationship between top logistics companies that set actual logistics operation standards and site borrowers becomes an issue increases, in the future, there is a possibility that it will lead to discussions on the negotiation structure at the industry level beyond individual corporate units." Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (garden@sidae.com)[View full article] To what extent government intervention... Labor policy ‘test bed’ in CU logistics negotiations (link)

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)'s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariff refund measure has entered the full implementation phase. CBP has established a consolidated refund processing function (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE)) within the Export and Import Clearance System (ACE) to request a first-stage refund, and refunds will be paid by Automated Account Transfer (ACH). Although many people are relieved that this is an opportunity to get back the tariffs paid in the past, the atmosphere in the field is complex, with expectations and concerns intersecting. This is because there are a lot of tasks that companies must solve, from applying for tariff refunds through the new refund system to responding to the disruptive trade pressure from the United States that will develop after the refund. The first practical issue that must be faced is that this refund is possible only through the company's active application, not through voluntary action by the administrative agency. In particular, CBP strictly limits refund application eligibility to the import declarant (IOR) and the customs broker (broker) designated by the import declarant. Even if the Korean headquarters paid actual tariffs during commercial transactions, you cannot apply for a refund if you are not a document importer. This is because CBP's refund application criteria gives priority to the status of the importer declared on the import declaration rather than the cost-sharing relationship in commercial transactions. Therefore, if differences of opinion that may arise between the head office and local corporations or distributors regarding the subject of ownership after the refund is paid are not settled in a detailed contract in advance, there is a high possibility that the customs duties paid by the Korean company will not be refunded. The criteria for selecting the refund target also require a sophisticated approach. Currently, the first stage of refund is limited to import declaration cases that are unsettled or less than 80 days after settlement. Cases that have passed 80 days after settlement, post-settlement reports (PSC), objection cases (Protest), AD/CVD imposition cases, etc. will be reviewed separately at a later stage. If a company hastily relies on the first stage of application without carefully classifying the status of its import case, it may face the risk of losing its rights due to administrative omissions. In the end, the future task is to manage non-traditional cases that the system does not accept and to prepare for judicial response if CBP refuses refund. A more fundamental threat is the United States' macro trade strategy that lurks beyond the immediate reward of refund. Currently, the US administration is imposing a 10% global tariff based on Article 122 of the Trade Act, and is also conducting an investigation under Article 301 of the Trade Act with unprecedented intensity. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) began a detailed investigation of 16 countries in March last year under the pretext of structural overproduction, and is also putting pressure on 60 countries in relation to forced labor. This policy stance is formally a way to deal with trade issues between countries, but in the actual execution process, it is developed to target the production of individual companies and the overall supply chain. In particular, the U.S. Trade Representative's investigation and follow-up measures target specific countries, but accumulate evidence through cases for each industry and product, and connect this to tariffs and regulations to directly affect the business environment of companies. Accordingly, rather than dismissing this as a simple conflict between countries, companies are required to respond by examining their entire supply chain and transaction structure. Ultimately, the response to this IEEPA phase must go beyond the level of simply acting as a refund application agent. The key is strategic compliance, which involves legally re-examining the commercial settlement structure between the Korean headquarters and the U.S. subsidiary and comprehensively designing how past customs practice data is connected to future trade dispute scenarios. From investigations into structural overproduction to regulations on forced labor, it is time for companies to examine their structural response system, which also foresees chain regulations after refunds amidst the wave of increasingly sophisticated protectionism in the United States. Reporter Lee Dong-oh (canon35@mt.co.kr)[View full article] US IEEPA tariff refund... What are the key issues that companies should not miss? (Shortcut)

| Internal Economy TV = Reporter Ban Jae-dong | A law firm and an information security company have established a cooperation system. The purpose is to establish a response system that links security and legal advice. Daeryun Law Firm announced that it has signed a business agreement with iSecure, a digital forensics and information protection company. The agreement ceremony was held at the Daeryun main office in Yeouido, Seoul. Attending the site were officials from both companies, including Daeryun CEO Kim Kuk-il, lawyer Lee Seo-hyung, and iSecure CEO Yoo Won-jun. iSecure is an information security company established in 2005 and operates in the fields of ISMS consulting, vulnerability diagnosis, penetration testing, and security solutions. Through this agreement, the two companies decided to establish a cooperation system that links corporate security risk diagnosis and legal advice. The main contents of cooperation include technical support related to information security certification consulting, provision of legal advice, and legal support related to overseas expansion of startups. Won Won-jun, CEO of iSecure, said, “Recent corporate information security issues could soon lead to enormous legal and economic damage,” and added, “Through cooperation with Daeryun, a large domestic law firm, we will provide practical consulting to help corporate customers have a safer and more complete information protection system.” Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun, said, "It is meaningful to work with iSecure, which has deep know-how in the information security field. We will become a reliable partner that perfectly protects corporate customers from compliance risks through a one-stop service that combines our legal expertise and information protection consulting."[View full article] Daeryun signs MOU with iSecure... Security and legal advisory cooperation (link)

New York SJKP, a global partner law firm of Daeryun Law Firm, announced on the 27th that it signed a business agreement (MOU) with global real estate brand 'Sotheby's International Realty'. Through this agreement, both parties decided to join forces to strengthen international real estate transactions and cross-border advisory cooperation. The agreement ceremony was held at SJKP's New York office on the 17th, and key officials from both sides, including CEO Daeryun Park, Vice President Lee Ye-sum, SJKP Director James Meaney, Charlie Oppler, representative of 17 Sotheby's branches in the United States, and Sotheby's New York and New Jersey branch manager Michelle Han. I attended.Sotheby's International Realty is a global real estate network launched in 1976 based on the heritage of Sotheby's, a global auction brand. It handles a wide range of portfolios, from ultra-high-priced residential assets to commercial real estate and investment-purpose assets, and is evaluated as a premium real estate platform that connects high-net-worth individuals and investors around the world. In addition, it is leading the global prime asset market by providing comprehensive services encompassing sales, leasing, and investment advisory by combining local expertise and international networks in each country. In particular, CEO Charlie Oppler is an industry representative who served as president of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAR) in the United States in 2021. It is known to have a vast network and unrivaled expertise in the overall U.S. real estate market. Through this MOU, SJKP plans to expand comprehensive advisory services including purchase, sale, lease, and investment structure review of residential and commercial real estate in major global cities, including the U.S. Through this, Korean companies and individual customers will be provided with real estate transaction advice and local law review at the same time, which will enable safer and more efficient overseas asset transactions. CEO Charlie Oppler said, "Based on Sotheby's global network and local market expertise, we will provide optimized asset management solutions to SJKP customers," and added, "We will cooperate to ensure successful asset acquisition and operation in major cities around the world as well as in the United States." CEO Park Dong-il of Daeryun said, "Overseas real estate transactions are simple." “It must go beyond sales and involve a three-dimensional analysis of contract structure, taxation, and local regulations,” he emphasized, adding, “Through this agreement, we will present practical legal solutions from a cross-border perspective so that customers can manage their assets more stably in the global real estate market.” Meanwhile, SJKP, based at One World Trade Center (1WTC) in New York, is expanding a variety of professional services, including legal, tax, and investment advisory, for domestic and foreign companies and investors wishing to enter the U.S. and resolve international disputes. There is. Eunhye Lee (zhses3@joseilbo.com)[View full article] Daeryun-SJKP, MOU with Sotheby’s International Realty...Strengthening the global real estate sector (Click here)

An employee who was accused of theft and obstruction of business by the CEO of her former workplace for demanding overdue severance pay was cleared of charges. According to the legal community on the 27th, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office cleared Ms. A, a woman in her 40s who was sent last month on charges of theft and obstruction of business. During the process of leaving the company in 2024, Ms. A copied Hwasa product design files and work reports to a personal external hard drive and failed to hand over work data and company SNS account passwords to her successor. He was accused of interfering with work by using force. However, Mr. A denied all charges. Mr. A refuted that he had transferred all data to the company's PC at the company's request before leaving the company and that the SNS password was also shared with internal employees. Mr. A then claimed, "I reported the company because of continuous non-payment of wages, but I received a complaint 10 months after leaving the company. It was a malicious complaint." The prosecution accepted Mr. A's claim. The prosecution determined that the information stored in the computer cannot be considered property under criminal law because it is not a tangible object, and that even if Mr. A took it, the crime of theft cannot be established because it does not reduce the information itself or reduce the possibility of possession and use of the company. Regarding the charge of obstruction of business, considering that Mr. A moved the data to his successor's PC and that the company requested a handover 10 months after the suspect left the company, the credibility of Mr. A's claim is high. The decision was made. Kim Ji-hyeon, an attorney at Daeryun Law Firm who represented Mr. A, said, “We were able to obtain a good result by actively demonstrating the legal principle that digital data cannot be subject to theft because the original remains intact even if copied, so there is no infringement of possession.” Reporter Jeong Cheol-wook[View full article] “Give me your password” 10 months after leaving the company... Non-prosecution of employee accused of obstruction of business (link)

SJKP, a U.S. subsidiary established by Daeryun Law Firm, announced on the 27th that it has signed a business agreement (MOU) with Horizon M&A Advisor, a U.S. M&A consulting firm, and will strengthen its cross-border mergers and acquisitions and investment advisory capabilities for Korean and U.S. companies. At the signing ceremony, which was held virtually at the SJKP conference room in New York, USA on the 19th, Daeryun CEO Park Dong-il and Horizon M&A Advisor's Managing Director Chris Mo Key officials from both companies, including directors, attended. Horizon M&A Advisor is an M&A consulting firm specializing in the transaction market for small and medium-sized companies in the United States. We provide integrated solutions throughout the entire transaction process, including corporate sale and acquisition advisory, including valuation, establishment of exit strategy, and corporate reorganization prior to sale. Through this agreement, the two companies plan to cooperate with each other in M&A transaction structure design and execution support, financial and legal due diligence collaboration, transaction negotiation strategy and contract document support, joint venture (JV) establishment and strategic alliance advisory, post-transaction integration (PMI) and risk management. Daeryun CEO Park Dong-il said, "The key to success in the global transaction market is legal. “It depends on how well stability and financial strategy are organically combined,” he said. “Through this agreement, we will provide practical and three-dimensional solutions so that our companies can secure growth engines more quickly and safely in the U.S. market.” SJKP, Daeryun’s U.S. subsidiary, which opened in New York in November last year, is currently expanding its range of services beyond its existing strengths such as international disputes, investment, and taxation to technology company M&A, family business succession, and investment advisory for the real estate and energy industries. Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)[View full article] Daeryun's local branch in the US signed a business agreement with 'Horizon M&A Advisor' (Go here)

Non-face-to-face medical treatment is no longer an optional service, but is becoming a factor directly related to the competitiveness of medical institutions.. Chronic disease patients, returning patient, Patients with difficulty moving, Office workers already consider the possibility of treatment and prescriptions without visiting the hospital as an important selection criterion.. In a situation where competing medical institutions within the same treatment area have a non-face-to-face visit management system, if they do not operate it, patient withdrawal is inevitable.. Management of chronic diseases, especially high blood pressure and diabetes, Description of test results, Non-face-to-face treatment serves as an effective means of simultaneously increasing treatment efficiency and patient retention rate in post-surgical progress checks.. Non-face-to-face treatment, not fully permitted 'conditional institutionalization'…Risk of expansion into criminal and administrative issues 2025year 12Non-face-to-face medical treatment was incorporated into a permanent system through the revision of the Medical Service Act in February, but at the same time, strong restrictions and conditions were set.. The current system is still based on face-to-face treatment and focuses on the clinic level., Focus on returning patients, The basic structure of prohibiting institutions dedicated to non-face-to-face treatment is maintained.. In particular, it is allowed for patients who received face-to-face treatment for the same symptoms at the same medical institution within a certain period of time., In other cases, the region and scope of prescription may be limited.. Hospital-level and higher medical institutions are also not able to freely provide non-face-to-face treatment to all patients., It is allowed only in cases where there are certain exceptions, such as patients with rare diseases or patients undergoing follow-up after surgery.. In addition, non-face-to-face prescriptions are restricted for drugs with a risk of abuse, such as narcotics, and if patient information is insufficient, the number of days prescribed or the type of drug may be further restricted.. Ultimately, it is reasonable to understand this revision as legislation that both allows and strengthens control.. Non-face-to-face medical treatment takes place in an environment where examination and palpation are impossible and one must rely on the patient's statement.. Nevertheless, the law does not lower the medical staff's duty of care. In other words, a structure is formed that assumes the same level of responsibility as face-to-face treatment while making decisions based on limited information.. Therefore, future disputes will involve not only the simple results of medical treatment, but also 'Why did you choose non-face-to-face treatment in this situation?'acts as a key issue. For example, chest pain, Difficulty breathing, acute pain, Failure to switch to face-to-face treatment despite symptoms of neurological abnormalities, The judgment itself can be assessed as negligence.. Ultimately, in non-face-to-face medical treatment, it is important to review the need to switch to face-to-face treatment along with medical treatment and to clearly state the basis for that decision.. The process of not only accepting the patient's statement as is, but also ruling out red flags through additional questionnaires, becomes the core of legal defense.. The most frequent problem area in non-face-to-face treatment is prescriptions.. If repeated prescriptions are made at the patient's request or drugs are prescribed without sufficient confirmation, this may be evaluated as a violation of medical law beyond simple negligence.. In particular, in cases involving narcotics or medicines that may be misused, it may be judged as an immoral medical practice and may lead to license suspension, and if insurance claims are combined, it may be expanded to criminal liability.. Moreover, if a medical record is created or a claim is made even though an actual examination has not occurred, the risk increases even further.. Many of the disputes that arise in practice arise from the good intentions of medical staff.. 'Please prescribe the same medicine as I have always taken it.'This includes cases where a patient's request is accepted or a simple non-face-to-face prescription is given for symptoms that appear to be mild.. However, if the patient's condition is not sufficiently checked during this process, if a problem occurs later, the key issue is not the appropriateness of the prescription, but the 'Whether the examination was sufficient'Go to. In particular, in cases where a serious illness is mistaken for a mild illness, the lack of judgment in switching to face-to-face treatment may be assessed as direct negligence.. Responsibility lies with the medical staff…The key is 'Defensible Care' Non-face-to-face medical treatment is based on a platform, but legal responsibility is not distributed.. Even if an error in transmitting patient information or a system failure occurs, the final medical decision is made by the medical staff.. For example, if your identity is unclear., In cases where it is difficult to determine the condition only through explanations on behalf of the guardian, Cases where it is difficult to make a judgment based on audio alone without video, Or, if the medical examination is cut off due to a connection error, it is advisable to establish standards to guide in-person visits or emergency room visits rather than continuing treatment.. Many medical staff tend to perceive the risk of non-face-to-face treatment as a simple medical accident problem., In reality, administrative and criminal risks often materialize faster than civil risks.. A patient's civil lawsuit takes time depending on proving causality, but, Administrative investigation or local confirmation, Reviews for nursing care benefits can be done much more quickly.. If a claim is made without meeting the requirements for non-face-to-face treatment, it may be evaluated as an unfair claim., This can lead not only to recovery, but also to business suspension or fines.. In particular, if the prescription itself is illegal, even the cost of the drug may be subject to reimbursement, resulting in a significant burden on medical institutions.. In the end, what matters is 'It's dangerous so don't do it'not, 'Let’s create and operate a structure to control legal risks.'is the point. Although it is clear that non-face-to-face treatment needs to be introduced for management reasons,, The premise is to establish safe operating standards.. Therefore, the question medical staff must ask themselves in the era of non-face-to-face treatment is simple.. 'Can you do this treatment?'not, 'Can I legally explain and defend this treatment?'am. Subject to non-face-to-face medical treatment under this standard, paperweight, prescription, record, claim, The entire process, including platform utilization, must be redesigned.. Non-face-to-face medical treatment is an inevitable trend, but, We must keep in mind that unprepared introduction can lead to the most dangerous legal trap for medical staff at any time.. |contribution| Attorney Soyoung Yoon, Daeryun Law Firm [View full article] [Contribution] Fully allowing non-face-to-face medical treatment, ‘legal pitfalls’ that medical staff must be aware of (link)