Press

Beware of possible conflict with fair trade laws... In a global market where pharmaceutical companies face fierce competition, the end of patent expiration no longer means losing their game. This is because the ‘Evergreening’ strategy is becoming increasingly popular. This strategy of dominating the market 'always green' by adding patents one by one makes it possible to generate overwhelming profits beyond simple survival. Evergreening strategy emerged as a hot topic at the 'Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Patent Strategy Seminar' hosted by Daeryun Law Firm's Medical Pharmaceutical Group on the 24th. At this seminar, attorney Lee Il-young (Daeryun Law Firm) explained in detail, focusing on cases, how the bug-greening strategy is being used to extend the market monopoly period of domestic and foreign pharmaceutical companies. The ever-greening strategy is a strategy to delay the entry of generic drugs into the market by applying for new patents or changing indications, dosage forms, crystal forms, etc. before existing patents expire. The drug mentioned as a representative example is Pfizer’s hyperlipidemia treatment ‘Lipitor (atorvastatin)’. This drug has become the number one sales blockbuster worldwide, symbolically demonstrating the success of the pharmaceutical industry's evergreening strategy. Specifically, Phyto has dominated the hyperlipidemia treatment market, monopolizing the market for about 20 years since filing for a substance patent in 1987. However, rather than simply relying on material patents, the exclusive period was extended as much as possible by applying for crystalline form patents and formulation patents one after another. Attorney Lee said, "Pfizer changed the crystalline form of Lipitor to prevent existing generic products from being approved, and designed a solid patent portfolio to prevent generic products from easily entering the market even after the expiration of patent rights." He emphasized that this strategy goes beyond simple technological superiority and is directly related to the pharmaceutical company's profit generation. In particular, at the seminar on this day, Evergreen Discussion continued about the possibility of the strategy conflicting with the Fair Trade Act. It is pointed out that if a certain pharmaceutical company intentionally abuses its patent rights to prevent generic drugs from entering the market, it may be subject to regulation by the Fair Trade Commission. In fact, lawsuits frequently occur for this reason in the United States and Europe. However, there are not many such lawsuits in Korea yet, and Daeryun explained, "The legal standards for judging patent abuse are not clear, so there are limits to the Fair Trade Commission's intervention." As in the case of Lipitor, foreign pharmaceutical companies actively utilizing the evergreening strategy In contrast, domestic pharmaceutical companies are relatively unsystematic when it comes to establishing patent strategies. Attorney Lee advised, “Domestic pharmaceutical companies also need to establish a systematic patent strategy from the early development stage and view it as a long-term investment.” Meanwhile, generic pharmaceutical companies are strengthening their defense strategies, such as invalidating evergreen patents or filing lawsuits for violation of the Fair Trade Act. For example, some generic companies have succeeded in breaking patent rights through patent invalidation trials, and are trying to reduce cases of reverse payment agreements. Regulations are also strengthening. In addition, lawyer Lee said that close cooperation between pharmaceutical companies and legal experts is important to maximize the effectiveness of the evergreen strategy, and emphasized, "Patent strategy is a matter directly related to the survival of the company beyond simple cost. Pharmaceutical companies must build a patent portfolio with market strategy in mind from the research and development stage." This seminar attracted attention from the related industry as an opportunity to once again remind us of the impact of patent strategy on consumer accessibility and market competitive structure beyond simply corporate profits. In addition, there was a consensus that in order for domestic pharmaceutical companies to overcome the cost burden and become competitive in the global market, they need to maintain a balance with regulations while actively using strategies such as evergreening. Reporter Lim Tae-gyun (i21@kpanews.co.kr)[View full article] Constant patent extension strategy... ‘Evergreening’ ambivalence (link)

Those who are opposed to the volatility supercharging system say it is a misunderstanding and are trying to strengthen communication. Lotte BioLogics is experiencing internal strife over the new personnel system that will be implemented starting this year. There are voices among employees that the regulations, such as not paying part of the contracted salary if the performance is low, are unreasonable. The company's position is that it is a misunderstanding that occurred during the first introduction of the system. Another reason is that communication becomes difficult as employees are physically separated. Currently, Lotte BioLogics is operating separate offices in Incheon and Seoul until the factory in Songdo, Incheon, is completed. As for the controversial performance-based pay system, Lotte BioLogics has been implementing a new personnel system called ‘Growth Level (GL)’ starting this year. The main point is to subdivide the existing four rank system (Chief, Assistant Manager, Responsible, Senior) into six levels (GL 1 to 6). There was also a cap (upper limit) for each department to limit promotions. What caused dissatisfaction among employees was the revamped performance bonus system. Lotte Biologics chose to accumulate 5-10% of employees' contract annual salary as a variable bonus and give differentials based on performance. There are a total of 5 grades for performance, and the top two grades receive 110% and 120% of their accumulated points, respectively. If you have accumulated 10 million won, you will receive 11 million won or 12 million won. The middle level receives the accumulated amount back without change. The problem is the lower level. Employees who receive the bottom two grades receive minus (-) 50% and -100% of the volatility bonus, respectively. If you receive the lowest grade, 10% of your maximum contract annual salary may be lost. This is the point where employees feel unreasonable. In response, the company explained that paying differentiated performance bonuses was a system that had been in place before. It was stated that the consent of the majority of all employees was obtained and that there were no legal problems. There were some procedural problems, but some employees said there were problems with the process of obtaining consent. Last year, Lotte BioLogics collected opinions for and against the new personnel system from employees. Employees signed for and against the bill while the human resources team watched from somewhere in Seoul. It is pointed out that the situation at the time was an uncomfortable environment where it was difficult for employees to make free decisions. One employee said, "We even had individual interviews with employees who did not sign and obtained their consent." Nam Seo-hye, a labor attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, said, "If it is recognized that a sufficient exchange of opinions among workers was not possible under the supervision of the human resources team, or that consent was forced on workers who expressed opposition, it is considered unfair intervention and interference and cannot be considered a legitimate consent procedure." The company emphasized that there was no coercion, such as giving disadvantages to people who opposed it. The human resources team said they were there simply to explain the system. Separately, there are demands for improvement in the stock option (stock purchase option) system that Lotte BioLogics has unconventionally introduced. The payment terms must be disclosed transparently. Lotte BioLogics introduced a system to grant stock options through self-evaluation every year in 2023. Then, in March of last year, stock options were paid to about 100 employees for the first time. There were complaints among employees that they received less quantity than promised. However, the company's position is that it has never promised the quantity to be provided in advance. The work environment in which communication is difficult is cited as the cause of this conflict. Currently, Lotte Biologics is building a bio campus in Songdo, Incheon. Until completion, employees are working in separate offices in Incheon and Seoul for each department. Physically, it is difficult to provide feedback on the new system smoothly. An official from Lotte BioLogics said, "We are aware that communication is difficult due to physical reasons, etc.," and added, "We are working to improve this, but we will think about more ways to help employees feel it." Reporter Kim Yun-hwa (kyh94@bizwatch.co.kr)[View full article] [Exclusive] Lotte BioLogics, internal dispute over new personnel system (Click here)

Excellent evaluation of job creation and welfare system Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), which supports financial and non-financial benefits for the next three years, announced on the 24th that it has been selected as a ‘2024 Best Job Company’ by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Shinbo). Since 2015, Shinbo has discovered ‘good job companies’ that have been working to create quality jobs and expand in-house welfare systems, and has separately selected companies with greater future growth potential and designated them as ‘Best Job Companies’. Top Jobs In the company selection process, the main evaluation factors are △job creation effect △welfare system such as welfare benefits △employment stability △social contribution activities and ethical management practices. Daeryun received the honor of being selected as the best job creation company in 2024. Shinbo plans to provide various benefits such as 0.5% point deduction in guarantee fee rate, limit transaction guarantee, and customized consulting for the company for the next three years to about 20 companies that were named as companies with the best jobs along with Daeryun. “Last year, under the management policy of being a ‘family-friendly law firm,’ we have been working to improve employee welfare by operating various maternity protection systems such as working from home during childcare,” said Kim Gook-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm. “It is meaningful because it has led to good results,” he said. He added, “We will further expand and develop the current welfare system in the future and help members fully demonstrate their capabilities within Daeryun.” Meanwhile, Daeryun attracted attention from the law firm industry by recruiting women and middle-aged people who had interrupted their careers at the end of last year.[View full article] My Daily - Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) selected as ‘2024 Best Job Creation Company’ by Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Go here) Venture Square - Daeryun Law Firm selected as ‘2024 Best Job Creation Company’ by Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Click here) International News - Daeryun Law Firm Recognized as 2024 Best Job Creation Firm (Go here)

Daeryun, which provides legal services necessary for the entertainment industry, such as content copyright protection and artist contracts, said on the 22nd that Daeryun Law Firm (Limited) has signed a business agreement (MOU) with Hollywood Manor, a record label. At the signing ceremony held at Hollywood Manor's headquarters on the 17th, Daeryun's CEO Kim Kuk-il and director Lee Ye-seom, Hollywood Manor's CEO Bang Yong-seok and director Shim Jin-young attended and discussed cooperation plans. Hollywood Manor is a music planning and production company established in 1997, and has established an unrivaled position in the industry by producing more than 2,500 works, including movie and drama OSTs, animation theme songs, and advertisement insert songs. In particular, it is receiving high praise for participating in the production of albums by famous artists active at home and abroad, such as performance director Kalin Park and musical actor Jae-rim Choi. Through this agreement, Daeryun plans to provide a variety of legal services, including resolving legal disputes that may arise within the entertainment industry and protecting copyright and trademark rights. Main services include △prevention of copyright infringement of contents such as albums △content trademark registration △legal advice and review on artist contracts and royalty distribution. Yongseok Bang, CEO of Hollywood Manor, said, “As we are expanding our scope of activity based on our musical capabilities and extensive network, it is important to respond quickly and professionally to legal issues. Cooperation with Daeryun, a large law firm, is essential for industry growth and stable operation.” Daeryun CEO Kim Kook-il said, “As the entertainment industry requires creative freedom and compliance with legal regulations, legal protection and stability are very important. Daeryun will provide professional legal services specialized in the entertainment industry through a team of experts such as lawyers, patent attorneys, and tax accountants.” Meanwhile, Daeryun Law Firm operates an entertainment and sports group and has been providing legal services specialized in various entertainment industries such as media, sports, and games. Reporter Kyung-ho Jeong (vj8282@nate.com)[View full article] Daeryun Law Firm signs MOU with record label ‘Hollywood Manor’ (Click here)

Prosecutors said, “We recommended investment with guaranteed principal and high returns, and we have no intention of returning the investment money.” Prosecution court, “All transfer details cannot be considered investment funds and cannot prove that the principal was guaranteed.” A case was found where a man in his 60s who was accused of extorting hundreds of millions of won from an acquaintance under the pretext of investing in virtual currency was found not guilty in the first trial. On the 5th of last month, Changwon District Court Chief Judge Jeong Yun-taek, Criminal Division 1, sentenced Mr. A, in his 60s, indicted on fraud charges. It was confirmed that the verdict was “the defendant is not guilty.” Mr. A recommended investing in virtual currency to Mr. B, who had become close to him through his usual abetment. Mr. B, who responded, sent approximately 400 million won to Mr. A on 81 occasions over a period of 3 years and 6 months, but did not receive any money back. The prosecution charged Mr. A with fraud, believing that he had deceived Mr. B into recommending an investment even though he had no intention or ability to pay the money from the beginning. Mr. A completely denied the charges. Mr. A refuted, saying, “I never promised to guarantee the principal to Mr. B,” and “The reason I did not return the money was because the investment failed and resulted in a loss. It is not that I had no intention of paying.” He also said, “There are many personal items, such as receiving money on behalf of errands at Mr. B’s request,” and also argued, “All the money sent from Mr. B cannot be considered investment money.” Changwon District Court Chief Judge Jeong Yun-taek, who heard this case, told Mr. A. He sentenced him to not guilty. Chief Judge Jeong Yun-taek said, “When looking at the details of the remittance, it includes many small amounts that cannot be considered investments,” and judged, “It is difficult to view all the remittances listed in the indictment as investment money.” He continued, “The victim continued to remit money for a long period of time even though he did not receive any actual profits.” He also added, “Despite making several remittances for virtual currency transactions, the credibility of the testimony was also low, such as saying that he did not know much about virtual currency. “It is weak.” He ruled, “It has not been clearly proven that the defendant lied about guaranteeing the principal and high profits.” He also ruled that the facts of the indictment were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Attorney Song Jae-baek of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented defendant A in this lawsuit, said, “In order to be recognized as guilty for a specific indictment, evidence with enough probative power beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’ is needed,” and “In this case, a recording file or “No reasonable evidence, such as a memorandum, was submitted to support Mr. B’s claim, and the court appears to have also taken this into consideration,” he explained. Reporter Son Dong-wook (twson@lawleader.co.kr)[View full article] 60-year-old accused of fraud for not returning virtual currency investment principal...Court ‘Not guilty as indictment facts not proven’ (Shortcut)

Any married couple has probably thought about divorce at least once. Among them, there may be people who go beyond simple thinking and search for related information directly on the Internet. However, in most cases, you only encounter unfamiliar legal terms, and it is difficult to obtain easy explanation and understanding. What types of property are subject to division? The court's position is that, in principle, property acquired through joint cooperation between the couple during marriage (so-called 'common marital property') is subject to division. Specifically, for example, things that anyone can easily think of, such as deposits, stocks, insurance, cars, and apartments, are included in the basic division targets. Furthermore, items such as cash, expensive jewelry, watches, and furniture accumulated in the house may also be subject to division. One spouse may receive money from a third party. If a couple is currently living in a rented house, the future contract holder will receive a refund of the rent deposit from the landlord, and the deposit may be included in the division. In addition, severance pay and national pension are also considered subjects of division that are easy to overlook. Even if you cannot receive it right away because there is a long period of time left until receipt, it can be divided. What about debt? In addition to the positive (+) property mentioned above (the court uses the term 'positive property'), negative (-) property (also using the term 'negative property') is also subject to division. A representative example is a home mortgage loan. Just as the house a couple lives in is subject to division, the debt incurred to buy the house must also be shared by the couple. In this way, it can be said that the property subject to division is very diverse. Even if you are well aware of what types of property are subject to division, you may encounter difficulties when following the related procedures. This is when you do not know the property your spouse owns. So how can you find out your spouse's assets? During a divorce lawsuit, the couple lists their respective assets and submits it to the court. It is difficult for non-lawyers to conceal assets through false information. This is because various documents must be attached to prove that the information stated is true. Based on this list, identify the other party's assets in detail. If you have any doubts or need information, apply for fact-finding to public institutions, banks, etc. Most of the reasons for the increase in divorce lawsuits are because the process of identifying assets is difficult and takes a long time. However, not all assets found in this way are subject to division. There is a concept called ‘unique property’. Although this is an extreme example, let's say you received an inheritance from your parents the day before you filed for divorce in court. However, if the inherited property had to be shared with the spouse, it would feel extremely unfair. Likewise, if one of the couple has property that was acquired through inheritance or gift or was held before marriage, there is a need to assert that it is 'unique property'. Since it is not property acquired through joint cooperation between the couple, it could be argued that it should be excluded from division or that these circumstances should be taken into consideration in the division ratio. Small Business Team[View full article] What is the subject of property division in divorce proceedings? (Shortcut)

Daeryun Law Firm (representative attorneys Kim Kuk-il and Ko Byeong-jun) enacted a rule banning advertising of non-certified AI legal programs, claiming it was a "violation of basic rights such as freedom to practice one's profession" Daeryun Law Firm (representative attorneys Kuk-il Kim and Byung-jun Ko) announced on the 22nd that it filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the Korean Bar Association's rule banning advertising of artificial intelligence (AI) legal counseling programs violates the Constitution. In October of last year, the Korean Bar Association issued a ban on AI legal programs that were not certified by the Association through Article 5 of the Rules on Advertising for Lawyers. Advertising was banned. The rule stipulates that lawyers cannot advertise that they use AI programs in their work other than those certified by the Bar Association and supervised by the responsible attorney. It also banned advertisements that allow consumers to directly use AI programs or connect them with lawyers. Daeryun argued that the rule violates the basic rights of lawyers and law firms. A Daeryun official said, "Although AI legal services are a useful tool that allows consumers to access more accurate legal information, the Bar Association's complete ban on related advertisements is a measure that infringes on the freedom of professional practice and freedom of expression." In addition, the fact that the Bar Association's AI certification standards are insufficient was also pointed out as a problem. The Bar Association stated in Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the ‘Rules on Lawyer Advertising’ that “the Association’s certification standards shall follow separate regulations,” but certification of the AI ​​program itself is impossible because no specific enforcement regulations have been established. Daeryun argued, “The Bar Association’s unilateral ban on AI-related advertisements in a situation where there are no certification standards is a measure that weakens the competitiveness of the legal market.” The reason why Daeryun filed this constitutional petition was because the Bar Association’s recent move to review disciplinary action continued after it released its self-developed AI legal service. The Korean Bar Association is said to be considering a response plan after seeing that the service may violate regulations. A Daeryun official said, "As AI legal services are being actively introduced overseas, the Korean legal profession also needs more flexible regulations to secure global competitiveness. Rather than unconditional regulation, an institutional mechanism that can promote innovation in the lawyer industry should be established." Meanwhile, Daeryun said that the AI legal consulting service will not replace the role of lawyers, but will develop into a more professional legal service. We plan to continue to raise the need for AI utilization, emphasizing that it is a means of promoting AI. Reporter Jinyoung Lee[View full article] Legal News - Daeryun files a constitutional appeal against the Korean Bar Association’s AI advertising regulations (link) Jose Ilbo - Korea Bar Association AI advertising regulation... Daeryun Law Firm Files Constitutional Petition (Click here) Hankook Ilbo - “Lawyer advertising regulations are unconstitutional”… Daeryun, constitutional complaint against the Korean Bar Association (link) SNN - Korean Bar Association AI advertising regulation... Daeryun Law Firm Files Constitutional Petition (Click here)

He has held high-ranking positions such as the head of the Narcotics and Organized Crime Investigation Department at the Central District Prosecutors' Office and the head of the Human Rights Bureau at the Ministry of Justice. He has excellent dispute resolution capabilities, including investigation and trial response using forensic techniques. Former Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office chief Cho Young-gon (16th class of the Judicial Research and Training Institute) recently joined Daeryun Law Firm (CEOs Kim Kuk-il and Ko Byeong-jun) as the chief general counsel. Daeryun plans to further strengthen its litigation and investigation response work through the recruitment of Attorney Cho. Attorney Cho is from Seoul National University. After graduating from the Department of Law and completing a master's degree in law from the same graduate school, he took his first steps into the legal field as a prosecutor. Afterwards, he served as the head of the Homicide Department at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, the chief prosecutor of the 3rd criminal division at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, and the head of the Drug and Organized Crime Investigation Department at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. Appointed as the head of the Human Rights Bureau at the Ministry of Justice in 2009, he established human rights-related policies and took the lead in protecting the human rights of crime victims. Afterwards, he was promoted to chief prosecutor after accumulating experience in investigating large-scale corporate criminal cases, finance, and taxation at various prosecutors' offices across the country. In particular, while serving as chief prosecutor. He developed a reputation as a 'chief investigator' by leading large-scale cases such as the investigation of the Four Major Rivers Project, the investigation into the recovery of fines from former presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, and the investigation into illegal tax evasion by large corporations. After retiring from public office as the 55th Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in 2013, he also served as a representative attorney at the law firm Yoon & Yang. During his time as a lawyer, he focused on investigations and trial response through forensic techniques. Of course, we have provided legal services based on our outstanding dispute resolution capabilities, including arbitration and mediation. As a result, Attorney Cho successfully performed legal advice and investigative response work in various corporate-related fields, including abuse of market dominant position by leading domestic and international companies, unfair trade practices, and corporate mergers. In particular, he has extensive experience in providing legal advice to large corporations such as Samsung Electronics, CJ Korea Express, SK Hynix, and Hyosung Group. In addition, he served as an advisory member of the National Police Agency's victim protection policy and a research advisory member of the Korea Institute of Criminology, and currently serves as an advisor to the Korea Crime Prevention Foundation. He serves as vice president and advisor to the Korea Victims Association (7th president) and is working hard to prevent crime. Attorney Cho said, “I am happy to join Daeryun, which stands out in the legal market and is providing specialized legal services.” He added, “Based on my experience leading various investigations such as public security, special, and corporate crimes, I will provide high-quality advice and legal services.” Managing CEO Kook-il Kim said, “As competition in the legal market is intensifying recently, we have extensive experience and knowledge. “We needed an expert,” he said. “I think we will be able to provide even more enhanced services to our customers with the addition of Attorney Cho, who is familiar with various fields.” Reporter Kim Nam-ha (skagk1234@dailian.co.kr)[View full article] Dailyan - Daeryun Law Firm joins Attorney Cho Young-gon, former Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Chief of Investigation (Go to the link) Law News - Cho Young-gon, former Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office Chief, joins Daeryun (link) Segye Ilbo - ‘Investigator’ Cho Young-gon, former chief of Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, joins Daeryun Law Firm (Click here) Legal Times - [Law Firm iN] Cho Young-gon, former Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office Chief Dae-ryun joins (link) International News - Former District Prosecutors' Office Chief Cho Young-gon begins full-fledged defense activities with Daeryun Law Firm (Click here)

A man in his 20s who was put on trial for molesting a middle school student he met through a chat app was acquitted in the first trial and also in the appeal trial. Criminal Division 4-2 of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judges Kwon Hyeok-jung, Hwang Jin-gu, and Ji Young-nan) dismissed the prosecution's appeal and declared him not guilty at the sentencing hearing for Mr. A (27), who was indicted on charges of violating the law on sexual protection of children and adolescents (forced molestation) on the 11th of last month. The original judgment was upheld. Mr. A is accused of molesting Ms. B (then 16 years old) on two occasions after putting her in a vehicle in November 2022. Mr. A got to know Ms. B through a mobile chat app, and it was confirmed that the date of the incident was their second meeting. During the investigation, Ms. B was found to have made a statement to the effect that ‘Mr. A forcibly touched important parts of her body even though she refused several times.’ The prosecution requested a fine of 10 million won for Mr. A based on Ms. B's statement. At the trial, Mr. A's legal representative pleaded not guilty based on the fact that the victim's statement was inaccurate and inconsistent. In addition, the vehicle's black box, which recorded the scene at the time of the incident, was submitted as evidence. After reviewing the black box transcript and the contents of the statement, the first trial court decided that it was difficult to say that Mr. A molested Ms. B. The court declared the victim not guilty, saying, "The victim's statement was overturned several times before reaching this court, and the evidence submitted did not contain anything that could lead to inference whether molestation had occurred." Attorney Oh Gyeong-hoon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who is Mr. A's legal representative, said, "In this case, the victim's claims kept changing from the investigation stage, and it was difficult to view the contradictions in the victim's statement as simply a mistake due to the passage of time or a difference in the detailed description method," and "Especially at the time of the incident." “When compared with the file recorded in the black box, there were parts that were different from the facts. Based on this, we were able to prove that Mr. A had not molested the victim and was acquitted.” Reporter Hwang Jeong-won (jwhwang@mt.co.kr)[View full article] “The black box saved my life”... Man in his 20s found not guilty on charges of molesting a middle school student (Click here)

A man in his 20s who assaulted and injured a fellow soldier while serving in the military received leniency from the court. According to the legal community on the 21st, the Suwon District Court postponed the sentencing of a fine of 5 million won against a man in his 20s, Mr. A, who was indicted on assault charges. Mr. A was indicted on charges of assaulting the face and shoulder of fellow soldier B in January of last year. He is also accused of biting B's finger and injuring him. At the time, the two men lost their emotions while arguing. It was investigated that Mr. A committed this crime because he became angry and could not control his anger. Mr. A admitted the charge, but appealed for leniency, saying that he committed the crime accidentally and that an agreement was reached with the victim. Both men also mentioned that they had returned to society after completing their military service. The court said, "Assault within the military unit is likely to disrupt military discipline," but added, "The defendant has been discharged from the military, so there is no risk of reoffending in a similar environment, and he has reached an amicable agreement with the victim and does not want to be punished." Attorney Kim Young-soo of Daeryun Law Firm, who was in charge of Mr. A's defense, explained, "In the case of general assault, the crime of impunity against the will is established under the criminal law, but military criminal law applies to assault in the military, so criminal punishment is imposed regardless of the victim's intention to punish." He added, "We mentioned this during the trial process and emphasized that if the victim had expressed his intention not to be punished, the case would be concluded with a decision to dismiss the indictment." “It appears that the court also accepted this and gave maximum leniency,” he said. Reporter Jeong Eui-jin (jej88@ikbc.co.kr)[View full article] “Accidentally..” A man in his 20s who assaulted a military colleague and bit his finger received a suspended sentence (link)