Press

Close mentoring provided by Corporate Legal Group Head Yoon Kyung-won and specialized attorneys- Aspiring legal professionals strengthen their capabilities by completing practical assignments in fair trade, patent and IP rights, cross-border matters, and more Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 18th that it had successfully concluded its '2026 Summer Internship Program' conducted for students of the Department of Law at Sookmyung Women's University.This program was organized by Daeryun's Corporate Legal Group and was designed to help aspiring legal professionals develop practical legal advisory skills and document drafting capabilities in corporate law. Held from the 6th to the 13th, the internship was attended by law students who completed practical corporate law training.The internship featured differentiated mentoring from specialized attorneys across various fields, including Corporate Legal Group Head Yoon Kyung-won, attorneys Kwon Il, Kim Won-sang, Son Kye-jun, and Cho Min-woo, and foreign attorney (U.S.) Kim Mi-a. On the 6th, the first day of the program, practical introductions were given for major specialized centers such as the Corporate Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Center, the Fair Trade Center, and the Patent and IP Rights Center.After reviewing each center's actual advisory cases and the latest legal trends, participants engaged in hands-on training such as drafting civil litigation answers and corporate advisory assignments under the guidance of their supervising attorneys. On the final day, the 13th, foreign attorney Kim Mi-a covered the main work of the 'Cross-Border Center' and the practice of advising international companies across borders, broadening the participants' global legal perspective.Yoon Kyung-won, Head of Daeryun's Corporate Legal Group, said, "This internship was substantively structured so that students could step out of the classroom to experience the core practice of corporate law and sharpen their practical instincts through feedback from practicing attorneys," adding, "We will continue to expand practice-oriented educational programs to cultivate outstanding legal talent." [Read Full Article] Daeryun Law Firm Successfully Concludes '2026 Summer Internship' for Sookmyung Women's University Students (Go to)

Diversifying communication density and unfolding preemptive advocacy···presenting a 'client-moving' litigation standard- Daeryun: "We will present differentiated litigation that gives clients deep reassurance" Daeryun Law Firm announced on the 14th that it is implementing the '5-STEP Reassurance Legal Service Campaign,' which involves close communication with clients throughout the entire process from taking on a case to after its conclusion.This campaign was prepared as part of the litigation quality system currently being implemented to provide systematic and clear legal services to clients who feel anxiety over legal disputes. The litigation quality system is a system in which the law firm itself takes responsibility for the quality of its legal services—for example, guaranteeing corrective measures and refunds of retainer fees in the event of service dissatisfaction—which Daeryun introduced as the industry's first last year and is currently implementing.Daeryun Law Firm's policy is to raise the standard of legal service to a higher level by deriving five core codes of conduct that move clients and applying them to actual litigation practice.The 5-STEP Reassurance Legal Service presented by Daeryun largely consists of ▲a prompt first greeting, ▲active communication, ▲meticulous execution, ▲a confident and proactive attitude, and ▲a responsible conclusion.First, it nailed down the initial response procedure to specific standards so that case information is delivered to clients without omission. As a principle, the assigned attorney conveys a first greeting on the very day a case is assigned; if the person in charge changes, a reassignment greeting is given within 1 day, and a kickoff meeting is held within 3 business days.It further heightened the communication density during the case's progress. When there is progress in the case—such as receipt of the opposing party's written brief or contact from an investigator—it is immediately shared, and even when there is no particular progress, the firm proactively makes contact at least once every 2 weeks to transparently inform the client of the current situation.It also set separate standards for raising the completeness of case handling. All work progress is meticulously recorded in an in-house system and shared with the client, and to guarantee sufficient review time, drafts of written briefs are delivered up to 1 week before the hearing date, thereby raising the accuracy of litigation execution.The proactive attitude of the lead attorney who leads the case was also made an important practice principle. If a trial date is not set, a motion to designate a hearing date is preemptively submitted, and if an investigation is delayed, the attorney communicates directly with the investigator, unfolding active advocacy so that there is no obstruction in the progress. In particular, for settlement-representation cases, the contact and reporting cycle is agreed upon in advance, and on the day of a trial the client attends, a pre-meeting is proposed 30 minutes beforehand to meticulously relieve the tension and anxiety right before the trial.The procedure after the judgment is pronounced was also responsibly strengthened with the goal of moving the client. From immediately after the pronouncement to the point the judgment is served, the firm protects the client's rights to the very end by giving a detailed briefing on the trial result as well as the merits of an appeal, future objection procedures, and calculation of the amount payable.Kim Kook-il, CEO of Daeryun Law Firm, said, "When clients seek out a lawyer, they are already going through the most difficult and anxious period of their lives," and "Through this '5-STEP Reassurance Legal Service Campaign,' we will establish Daeryun's own differentiated litigation system in which, beyond the win or loss of a case, clients can deeply trust and be moved from the very process itself." [Read the full article] "Answering Before Being Asked"···Daeryun Launches the '5-STEP Reassurance Legal Service Campaign' (Go to link)

This past July, the National Tax Service (NTS) announced an 'AI Grand Transformation' roadmap to apply AI across the entire national tax administration, from tax consultations to tax investigations and delinquency management.Starting with building the core infrastructure for this in the second half of this year, the plan is to launch the main project next year and expand the service to all areas by 2028. The core of this change lies not simply in introducing new technology.Tax investigation is being gradually transformed from a method of verifying individual transactions to a method of comprehensively analyzing vast data—such as fund flows, consumption patterns, transactions among family members, and overseas asset movements accumulated over several years—to detect anomalies.It amounts to a fundamental change in the paradigm of national tax administration for the first time in about 40 years, since the selection of investigation targets through computerized systems began in 1984.In the past, investigation targets were selected according to criteria set by people, centered on filing data or ledgers. A representative example is the PCI (income-expenditure analysis) system, which compares the increase in assets and the scale of consumption against declared income to detect imbalances in the asset-formation process.The NTS's 'AI Grand Transformation' roadmap goes one step further from here. A text mining technique, in which AI itself learns patterns related to evasion suspicions from vast unstructured data such as tax investigation results, adjudication precedents, and filing data accumulated over decades to predict risk levels, will be combined in stages.If the roadmap proceeds as planned, it is expected that imbalances in the asset-formation process will be identifiable far more precisely than now.Alongside this, important analytical clues are the reporting data of financial institutions. High-value cash transaction (CTR) reports automatically filed with the Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) upon cash deposits or withdrawals of 10 million won or more per day, and suspicious transaction (STR) reports filed by financial institution employees, are already major subjects of NTS analysis, and are expected to be even more tightly combined with the AI analysis system going forward.This data will play a key role in screening cash flows abnormally large relative to declared income, or repeated split withdrawals.However, as AI tax administration expands, exaggerated information such as 'the NTS monitors all of an individual's financial transactions in real time' is also spreading. The reality is different.The AI Grand Transformation does not mean building a system that constantly monitors all accounts, but is closer to advancing a tool that analyzes the possibility of evasion based on data collected within the scope set by law to select investigation targets.Nor does a mere transfer of living expenses among family members or a one-time remittance immediately trigger a tax investigation. It is a structure in which the need for investigation rises only when multiple data points combine to form anomalies—such as an increase in assets that does not match declared income, repeated fund movements, or transactions whose economic substance is unclear.There is one more point to note here. The fact that AI detects an anomaly does not mean the result immediately signifies tax evasion. AI is merely a tool to screen investigation targets; what ultimately determines whether tax is levied is law and evidence.Whether a parent temporarily lent funds to a child, whether a family pooled funds to jointly purchase real estate, and whether a transaction between a corporation and its representative was based on a legitimate contract are judged not by AI but by objective evidence submitted during the investigation—such as contracts, loan certificates, interest payment records, and accounting materials.In the end, even for the same transaction, how clearly one can prove its legal nature determines the outcome of the investigation.This change is also transforming the paradigm of tax risk management. In the past, after-the-fact response—preparing explanatory materials after a tax investigation began—was common.In contrast, now that the AI analysis system is being advanced in stages, advance management—systematically leaving behind evidence to support legal legitimacy and economic substance from the stage the transaction takes place—has become essential.Therefore, in monetary transactions among family members, one must check the drafting of a loan certificate, payment of appropriate interest, and whether withholding tax applies, and in capital transactions of a family corporation, one must closely review appropriate valuation and the contract structure.Even when acquiring high-value assets, a procedure to confirm in advance whether the declared income and the source of funds are logically connected is necessary.The tax-saving strategy of the AI era is no longer simply a technique for reducing taxes. Building in advance a structure that can explain the economic substance and legal legitimacy of a transaction with objective materials becomes the most powerful risk management.To respond to the advancing AI analysis system, a sophisticated legal and tax strategy is required that comprehensively considers not only simple tax knowledge but also review of the legal effect of transactions, the investigation stage, and appeal procedures.Josebo / Certified Tax Accountant Jung Kyung-ok, Daeryun Law Firm [Read the full article] National Tax Service's AI Tax Investigations Go Into Full Swing…"Not After-the-Fact Explanation, but Advance Documentation Is Key" (Go to link)

-Legal column by Attorney Choi Dae-il, Daeryun LLC (Law Firm)A court ruling has been issued holding that, even if a public enterprise restricts a company's bidding eligibility based on its own internal regulations, such a disposition is unlawful if it exceeds the requirements set by higher law. It is expected to cause ripples in that it directly addresses the point that the bidding-restriction legal principles applied to state agencies and to public enterprises differ. The Seoul Administrative Court recently issued a ruling (2025 Guhap 54418) that put the brakes on a public enterprise's arbitrary bidding-eligibility restriction disposition. Mr. C, the site manager of construction firm A, provided approximately 420,000 won worth of meals and alcohol to employees of the defendant, Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH). The defendant regarded this as bribery and imposed a 3-month bidding-eligibility restriction disposition on Company A and its former CEO, Mr. B, respectively. However, the court cancelled all of these, holding that the subordinate rule had no legal binding force and that the grounds for the disposition did not exist. The significance of this ruling does not lie in the company winning because the amount of the entertainment provided was small. The core is that the court pointed out that the defendant itself failed to meet the statutory disposition requirements demanded by the Act on the Management of Public Institutions.The issue is not the 'amount' but the difference in the sanction-basis statute applied to the ordering party. When a state agency is the ordering party, under the State Contract Act, bidding eligibility can be restricted if only certain grounds such as bribery exist. In contrast, public enterprises are subject to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, which sets stricter requirements, allowing restriction at discretion only in cases where it is 'clear that the proper performance of the contract will be harmed,' going beyond mere bribery.The defendant imposed the sanction by asserting that the subordinate rule (former Contract Affairs Rules) delegated under the Act on the Management of Public Institutions applied the State Contract Act's binding provisions as is. However, the court's judgment was different. It held that even if a public enterprise sanctions based on internal regulations, if those regulations arbitrarily relax the strict requirements of higher law and exceed the scope of delegation, they have no effect on the company. It reaffirmed the principle that an administrative agency's internal rules cannot restrict the people's rights beyond the scope of delegation by higher law. In the end, the court's conclusion was that, in a large-scale construction project amounting to 65.1 billion won, a meal treat at the level of 420,000 won cannot be concluded to be a 'clear case of harming the proper performance of the contract.' It held that the grounds for the sanction itself did not exist.This ruling does not stop at the victory of one particular construction firm. It has greater significance as a case that reconfirmed the legal standards for bidding-eligibility restrictions across institutions subject to the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, such as LH, Korea Electric Power Corporation, and Korea Expressway Corporation. Corporate legal officers should build defense logic based on the following four criteria when they receive a public-bidding sanction notice.First, one must distinguish the ordering party's legal status and the applicable law. Since the applicable law and the strictness of the sanction requirements completely differ depending on whether the ordering party is a state agency or a public enterprise, one must clearly separate these in responding.Second, one must objectively demonstrate whether there was substantive contract infringement. Through objective materials such as the progress rate, quality, completion status, and whether there were contractual defects, one must actively prove that the proper performance of the contract was not actually infringed.Third, one must thoroughly secure the facts from the early audit stage. Since each early statement—such as who first proposed the meal, how the payment and subsequent settlement were made, and whether there was actually any mention related to the contract—determines whether bidding is restricted, the corporate legal team must actively intervene from the audit stage.Fourth, one must actively object to and contest routine sanction dispositions. Construction firms often give up prematurely when they receive a bidding-restriction notice. However, as in this case, if one drills into not only the content of the act itself but also the limits and illegality of the subordinate rule that forms the legal basis of the disposition, the disposition itself can be nullified.Bidding-eligibility restriction does not stop at a mere 3-month suspension of business. It has cascading adverse effects, including damage to trust in the public-bidding market as well as on financial institutions' credit evaluations and private ordering parties' contract reviews. This ruling shows that not all sanctions by public enterprises are lawful. A company must, immediately upon receiving a sanction notice, review not only the facts but also the legal basis of the disposition and the scope of delegation by higher law. It is necessary to remember that administrative sanctions, too, cannot exceed the limits set by law. Reporter Lee Dong-o (canon35@mt.co.kr) [Read the full article] Even Public Enterprises Cannot Override Higher Law…Brakes on Mechanical Bidding Restrictions (Go to link)

Unauthorized crawling emerges as an issue under copyright law and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act"Preemptive responses such as robots.txt and terms of use are needed" As generative artificial intelligence (AI) services spread, the possibility of legal disputes arising from the use of content and data accumulated by companies themselves in the AI training process is also growing. Critics point out that when materials a company created with considerable time and cost—such as websites, press releases, and manuals—are collected and used without separate consent, it is necessary to review not only copyright but also whether the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has been violated.Attorney Kim Yu-jung of Daeryun Law Firm emphasized on the 13th that, regarding corporate data protection in the era of generative AI, a technical and legal defense system prepared against AI's unauthorized data collection is needed.Attorney Kim said that as cases increase recently in which generative AI services collect corporate websites and external content to use as training data, the management and protection of the data a company has built is emerging as a new challenge. Under the current Copyright Act, works that creatively express human thoughts or emotions are protected as copyrighted works. Accordingly, whether an act in which AI collects and trains on a company's content constitutes copyright infringement must be judged comprehensively by considering the nature of the data and the method of use.In particular, debate continues over whether data collection for AI training constitutes fair use as defined in Article 35-5 of the Copyright Act. AI developers may argue fair use on the grounds that they do not provide the original content to users as is, but utilize it in the training process, whereas data rights holders argue that their economic interests can be infringed by unauthorized commercial use.Attorney Kim explained that since it is hard to say that a consistent legal standard has yet been established for large-scale web crawling for AI-training purposes, companies must closely examine the legal nature and method of use of each piece of data.For data that is difficult to sufficiently protect under copyright law, she also suggested the possibility of responding through the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.Article 2, Item 1, Subitem (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act defines as an unfair competition act the act of infringing another's economic interests by using, without authorization and in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order, the results created by another's considerable investment or effort.She said that even if the creativity of individual pieces of information itself is not high, if a company invested considerable manpower and cost to collect, classify, and process the information, there is a possibility of it being recognized as a single work product.In fact, there are cases in which courts have judged that the considerable effort and investment put into the collection and processing of data must be protected, in a case where a competitor collected industrial information that a company had built over a long period through investment and effort using an automated program and used it in its own service.Attorney Kim viewed that this legal reasoning could also be reviewed in the process of generative AI's data utilization. Her explanation is that if AI collects data or content that a company has built over a long time and utilizes it commercially, infringing the company's economic interests, liability under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act may become an issue separately from whether there is copyright infringement.She also emphasized that preemptive corporate-level responses are important. First, one can consider technical measures to restrict access by AI crawling bots by setting a 'robots.txt' file on the website. She said it is necessary to specify in the website's terms of use content restricting crawling, scraping, and parsing for AI-training purposes, and to clearly indicate the company's intent regarding data use to the outside world.However, rather than concluding that such measures alone can legally block all AI data collection, Attorney Kim explained that a company must comprehensively manage the type and scope of disclosure of the data it holds, its terms of use, and the actual methods of collection and use.Attorney Kim Yu-jung said, "In a situation where the maintenance of related laws and systems lags behind the pace of AI technology development, if a company neglects its data, it can be exposed to new legal and managerial risks," and "It is necessary to review the website operation policy and terms of use and to establish a data compliance system that runs technical blocking measures and legal review in parallel." [Read the full article] [Legal Close-Up]⑪ In the Age of Generative AI, Corporate Data Also Needs 'Defense' (Go to link)

Foreign attorneys Kim Mi-a and Ahn Jun-yong, together with customs specialist Myung Jae-ho (Daeryun Law Firm), bring you cross-border legal affairs news. Amid growing uncertainty in U.S. immigration policy, demand for U.S. investment immigration (EB-5) is increasing as a means of obtaining permanent residency without relying on an employer sponsor or a visa lottery. EB-5 is a system in which one can receive permanent residency by investing a certain amount in a U.S. business and creating jobs; when investing in a specific area such as a rural region (TEA), the minimum investment is 800,000 dollars. Among these, indirect investment through a government-designated Regional Center is the most widely used method in practice, and this Regional Center program is a time-limited system with congressional authorization through September 30, 2027.Attention to the grandfathering clause…the existing deadline is this September Consequently, in practice we are often asked, "Isn't there still time until 2027?" But the real reference date investors must mind is separate. September 30, 2027 is merely the program's own authorization expiration date; to have the current conditions (such as the 800,000 dollars) guaranteed as they are, one must act by the 30th of next month, a year earlier. What divides this date is precisely the 'grandfathering' clause that protects existing investors.Under the grandfathering clause introduced in 2022, an investor who files a petition (I-526E) by the 30th of next month can be reviewed under the rules in effect at the time of filing, even if the system changes afterward. In other words, that date is not a simple filing deadline but the last reference date on which the current conditions can be preserved as they are.If an I-526E is submitted after that date, the filing will not be rejected, but if Congress does not extend or reauthorize the Regional Center program by its expiration date of September 30 next year, the Regional Center program will terminate on September 30 next year. Also, an I-526E under review as of that date (an I-526E submitted after September 30, 2026 and before September 30, 2027) will be held indefinitely until Congress takes separate action. In that case, the investor would be placed in a state where enormous funds are tied up, so considering this, the 30th of next month is a cut-off (deadline) that must not be missed.The background making this reference date even more important lies in recent sweeping changes across U.S. immigration policy. This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued major rulings surrounding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and border policy, and discussions on restricting birthright citizenship are also ongoing. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has also, since last month, been more strictly verifying the authenticity of applicants' signatures and submitted documents. As the system changes this rapidly, the completeness of preparation, rather than the speed of filing, has become the crux.Source of funds, application documents, project…the 3 keys to obtaining permanent residency So what must investors check? The crux is largely the source of funds, the application documents, and the project.First, the field where the most Requests for Evidence (RFE) actually arise in review is the Source of Funds. USCIS focuses its review not on the size of the investment but on how the funds were formed and through what path they were used as investment funds. For proceeds from a real estate sale, the flow from acquisition to sale, tax payment, and remittance must be connected, and for gifted funds, there are cases where even the gift giver's fund-formation process must be explained. In the end, what matters is not the size of the investment but its provability.Management of application documents is equally important. Errors in preparation or an invalid signature can be grounds for delay or denial of review. Since spouses and children often apply together, the documents of family members must also be managed consistently.The project must be examined from both the permanent residency and investment perspectives. It is advisable to comprehensively examine the job-creation structure, collateral, repayment sources, and the developer's business execution capability, and, for a public infrastructure project, to also confirm the role of government agencies and the structure for recovering the investment.Implications U.S. investment immigration is a long-term legal process lasting several years—far more than a procedure that ends once the investment is remitted—from demonstrating the source of funds to immigration review, removal of the conditional permanent residency, and recovery of the principal. In the end, the one who produces results will not be the one who files fastest, but the investor who prepares funds, documents, and the project flawlessly in accordance with U.S. immigration standards. [Read the full article] [Cross-Border Legal Affairs] U.S. Investment Immigration Closing in September: 'Provable Funds' Are Key (Go to link)

"There are circumstances of an interviewer recommending she apply, but it is hard to conclude prior collusion on passing"Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issues a no-charge disposition on grounds of 'insufficient evidence' A woman in her 40s who had been suspected of participating in unfair hiring during the open recruitment process of a culture and arts institution was cleared of charges after a prosecution investigation.According to the legal community on the 11th, the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office determined this past June that the evidence was insufficient regarding Ms. A, who had been investigated on charges of obstruction of business, and issued a no-charge disposition.Ms. A applied for open recruitment of staff at a culture and arts institution in 2019 and was finally selected. She was subsequently suspected of submitting false career records and of undermining the fairness of the hiring process by coordinating in advance with some interviewers.However, the prosecution judged that there was insufficient objective material to find that Ms. A had known in advance about irregularities in the hiring process or had actively participated in them.During the investigation, it was confirmed that some interviewers had recommended that a particular applicant apply, or had reviewed a résumé, before the recruitment notice was posted. However, the prosecution found it difficult to conclude, based on such circumstances alone, that Ms. A had been aware in advance of a predetermined selection or had colluded with the interviewers in hiring corruption.Furthermore, no evidence was found that she had received interview questions or evaluation content in advance, and it is reported that there was likewise insufficient material to find that Ms. A had discussed rank adjustments with interviewers or had directly intervened in the hiring result.Ms. A consistently denied the relevant charges throughout the investigation. She stated her position that, since the company she worked for at the time and the institution in question used the same building, she was acquainted with the staff, and she had simply applied through a normal open recruitment process after being encouraged by those around her to apply.Attorney Choi Han-sik of Daeryun Law Firm, who handled Ms. A's legal representation, explained, "In hiring corruption cases, responsibility cannot be imposed simply because someone was finally selected; the key issue is whether the applicant recognized or colluded in the hiring corruption in advance," and "We proved, through objective materials, the client's actual career and the process of preparing for the open recruitment and the interview and essay exams, and by demonstrating that there was no evidence to find she had participated in or been aware of hiring corruption, we were able to draw out a no-charge disposition." Reporter Seo Da-hee happiness@kyeonggi.com [Read the full article] Woman in Her 40s Suspected of 'Unfair Hiring' at a Culture and Arts Institution…Prosecution Clears Her of Charges (Go to link)

Charged with an obscene act witnessed by a bystander while defecating in an abandoned houseCourt: "The witness did not directly see the act…and no unusual traces were found at the scene" A man in his 30s who was charged with public indecency after defecating in an abandoned house while on a walk was found not guilty by the court.The Nonsan Branch of the Daejeon District Court found Mr. A, a man in his 30s who had been indicted on a public indecency charge, not guilty on the 23rd of last month.Mr. A was charged with committing an obscene act at an abandoned house in July last year. The witness, Mr. B, stated to the investigative agency that Mr. A had removed his lower garments and was masturbating.In contrast, Mr. A completely denied the charge. He argued that while on a walk he suddenly had an urgent need to relieve himself, so he removed his pants at the abandoned house to defecate and was merely discovered by the witness, and that he had never committed any obscene act.The court judged that Mr. A's charge had not been proven. The court took note of the fact that witness Mr. B's statement had gradually changed in content as the case went from the investigation stage through trial. Appearing in court, Mr. B stated, "I did not directly see Mr. A's act; I only saw that his lower body was undressed and he was covering the genital area with one hand," overturning his own earlier statement.In addition, it was confirmed that, according to the police investigation, no unusual items such as tissue were found at the scene right after the incident. The court found the defendant not guilty, holding that, taken together—the witness's statement changing at each point in time, making it hard to believe as is, and the absence of any confirmed cleanup traces at the scene—the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to conclude that the defendant's act was an obscene act.Attorney Cho Sang-soo of Daeryun (law firm), who represented the case, stated, "Public indecency cases are often prosecuted relying on a bystander's fragmentary statement, but in this case we drilled into the fact that the witness's statement kept changing over time and did not match the objective facts," and "By systematically reconstructing and demonstrating the fact that no traces were found at the scene and the specific circumstances under which the defendant had no choice but to leave the scene, we were able to prevent an unjust punishment." whyjay@sportsseoul.com Reporter Shin Jae-yu [Read the full article] Soldier in His 30s Charged with 'Public Indecency' After Removing His Pants While on a Walk…The Reason for 'Not Guilty' (Go to link)

Heard together with an accomplice by the 6th Criminal Division of the Busan District Court The key to the judgment in the trial of Jung Yi-han, former Reform Party candidate for Busan mayor, who was indicted and detained on charges of staging a fake beverage-attack self-drama during the June 3 local elections, is expected to be the 'electoral influence' of the faked incident.The general view of the legal community is that, given the nature of election crimes, the court's judgment on the overall impact on voters, beyond the incident itself, will have a decisive effect on sentencing.According to the legal community on the 11th, the case of former candidate Jung, who was referred to trial on the 31st of last month on charges including violation of the Public Official Election Act (dissemination of false facts) and obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means, was assigned to the 6th Criminal Division of the Busan District Court (presiding judge Im Sung-cheol).The court plans to hear the cases of the two defendants—former candidate Jung and his accomplice, fitness trainer A (in his 30s)—together. The date of the first hearing has not yet been set.Former candidate Jung and Mr. A are accused of conspiring in the 'fake assault self-drama' that took place near the Guseo IC in Geumjeong-gu, Busan, on April 27. It is cited as an unprecedented incident in the history of Korean elections.Earlier, a charge of instigating a violation of the Public Official Election Act (obstruction of election freedom) was added to former candidate Jung following supplementary investigation by the prosecution.The prosecution, having confirmed that the self-drama was carried out through former candidate Jung's plan and specific instructions, regards former candidate Jung's legal responsibility as grave.The focus of the trial is expected to be a sentencing hearing that judges the electoral impact of the self-drama, rather than contesting guilt or innocence.At present, it is difficult to predict the level of the sentence. While the prevailing view in the legal community is that avoiding actual imprisonment will be difficult given the gravity of the matter, the possibility of a suspended sentence cannot be ruled out considering various mitigating factors such as the fact that he is a first-time offender.Attorney Kim In-won of Daeryun LLC (Law Firm) said, "If all the crimes are found guilty, under the concurrent-crimes relationship in criminal law, the sentence will be determined by combining the responsibility for each crime rather than evaluating them as a single crime," adding, "In sentencing, the planning and degree of involvement in the crime, the extent of the impact on voters' judgment, and whether investigative agency manpower was deployed are likely to be considered important."Attorney Kim added, "Unlike ordinary criminal offenses, election crimes have a strong character of protecting the process of democratic will formation itself, so courts tend to weigh planning and electoral influence heavily," and "If the staging of a false situation is recognized, the key will be whether it can be seen as an act that distorted voters' judgment process and the functioning of public authority." Reporter Kim Min-ji (mingya@newsis.com) [Read the full article] Jung Yi-han's 'Faked Assault' Trial: Judgment of Electoral Influence Is the Key (Go to link)

-Legal column by Attorney Heo Sung-guk, Daeryun LLC (Law Firm)Shift-work sites such as hospitals, manufacturing, and facility management, where 24-hour operation is essential, mostly adopt the flexible working hours system to operate work hours flexibly. The flexible working hours system stipulated in the Labor Standards Act is a system that extends work hours in a particular week or day while shortening work hours in another week or day, so that the average work hours within a certain unit period are kept within the statutory standard of 40 hours per week. It can be called an essential labor mechanism that the law guarantees to reduce the burden of overtime pay and to operate manpower efficiently at sites where workloads are concentrated or shift schedules are complex. To operate a flexible work system lawfully, the requirements set by law must be strictly observed. Article 51 of the Labor Standards Act sets different adoption requirements according to the unit period: a unit period of up to 2 weeks can be adopted through the rules of employment, while a unit period of up to 3 months requires that the scope of covered workers, the unit period, and the working hours for each working day be set through a written agreement with the workers' representative. However, nowhere in the law is there a restriction requiring that this unit period must be set identical to the work rotation cycle actually running in the field.In fact, the author recently conducted a wage lawsuit related to this on behalf of an employer. In this case, the worker argued for the invalidity of the system on the grounds that, despite the existence of a lawful 2-week unit standard, the actual work in the field was operated on a 3-week rotation, and won at the first instance. However, the appellate court accepted the author's argument that there is no legal basis requiring the statutory unit period and the field rotation cycle to coincide, and rejected the worker's arbitrary claim of the system's invalidity.The core labor risk that shift-work sites face in the field arises precisely from the gap between legal standards and the actual schedule. Situations where the originally set work schedule or rotation cycle inevitably changes due to personnel gaps or the nature of the work are bound to occur. If, at this point, an employer neglects the difference between the standard on paper and the field schedule without legal review, it provides workers a pretext to arbitrarily cut out a particular point in time and claim a hypothetical work pattern favorable to themselves. This is a fatal risk factor that can lead to the effectiveness of the flexible work system itself being denied and escalate into an overtime-pay-arrears dispute for the entire work period.To defend against this risk and operate a lawful flexible work system, a meticulous management strategy must be in place. Above all, perfectly equipping the rules of employment or written agreement procedures—which form the backbone of the system—in accordance with the requirements of the Labor Standards Act is the top priority. The scope of covered workers and the working hours for each working day must be clearly defined in accordance with the adopted unit period (within 2 weeks or within 3 months). Furthermore, even if the field rotation cycle fluctuates flexibly, a monitoring system must be established to carefully control the total actual work volume so that the average weekly work hours do not exceed the statutory standard within the predetermined unit period. If such a dispute is raised, a systematic approach is needed that logically proves, based on objective attendance data and legal assistance, the fact of lawful adoption of the system and compliance with the work-hour limit within the unit period. Reporter Lee Dong-o (canon35@mt.co.kr) [Read the full article] What Is the Lawful Management Strategy for a Flexible Work Hours System That Prevents Wage-Arrears Disputes? (Go to link)