企业刑事
[Corporate Criminal] Case in Which the Representative of an Unlisted Company, Investigated for KRW 30 Billion Embezzlement under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Received a Non-Custodial Indictment, a Suspended Sentence, and a Finalized First-Instance Judgment
1. Case Overviewa. Party Represented by Barun Law Defendant Mr. A, who was indicted for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement) after transferring approximately KRW 30 billion from accounts in the names of Company B and Company C to his personal accounts and using the funds for personal purposes. b. Background of the Case After tens of billions of won were withdrawn hundreds of times from the accounts of Company B and Company C to accounts in Mr. A's name, a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) was filed with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Financial Services Commission on suspicion of money laundering. In the course of a police preliminary investigation into fund tracking and alleged concealment of criminal proceeds, allegations of embezzlement by Mr. A against Company B and Company C were uncovered. As a result, Mr. A was non-custodially indicted for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement), as charged by the police. c. Proceedings The Suwon District Court found all charges against Mr. A proven and sentenced him to two years and six months of imprisonment, suspended for four years. 2. Judgment Suwon District Court Decision 2025GoHap344, dated October 23, 2025 3. Our Arguments and Role: During the investigation stage, we emphasized that the client was the founder and de facto representative of Company B and Company C and had faithfully managed each company; that due to repeated deposits and withdrawals, the nominal amount of damage appeared large, but the actual net outflow withdrawn from the companies' accounts was relatively small; that all amounts transferred to the personal account had been properly recorded as temporary advances in the accounting records; that imputed interest had also been duly paid to the companies; and that withdrawals were made only within the limits of the retained earnings of Company B and Company C. We further provided the investigative authorities with a detailed explanation that Mr. A intended to repay the majority of the actual damages, and that he did in fact faithfully repay the damages accordingly. As a result, although Company C was a one-person company, Company B was not, and despite the embezzled amount reaching several hundred billion won, no arrest warrant was sought against Mr. A, leading to a non-custodial indictment. At the trial stage, we further substantiated the foregoing arguments and actively engaged in advocacy with a focus on the fact that the defendant required sufficient time to make restitution, thereby persuading the court to grant Mr. A the maximum leniency permitted by law. In particular, by ensuring that the defendant repaid all damages prior to the sentencing, we minimized the likelihood of the prosecutor appealing the first-instance judgment. As the prosecutor ultimately did not appeal, the judgment became final, enabling the defendant to promptly escape an unstable legal status. 4. Significance of the Judgment Under the Sentencing Guidelines of the Sentencing Commission, embezzlement and breach of trust involving amounts exceeding KRW 5 billion carry a basic sentencing range of four to seven years of imprisonment, and cases involving amounts exceeding KRW 30 billion are punished even more severely, with a range of five to eight years of imprisonment. Nevertheless, in this case, despite the embezzlement amounting to approximately KRW 30 billion, the defendant was not detained, received a suspended sentence at the first-instance trial stage, and the judgment became final immediately thereafter. Given the recent increase in tax investigations and criminal investigations into embezzlement and breach of trust involving one-person companies and family-owned companies, cases of this nature require effective responses with the assistance of attorneys possessing specialized expertise. This judgment is significant in that Barun Law LLC provided seamless, non-stop legal services from the initial police investigation through the trial, thereby achieving the best possible outcome for the client.
2026. 01. 30
企业刑事
[Corporate Criminal] Case in Which Barun Law Defended a Well-Known Food Company and Its Employee Indicted for Violation of the Country-of-Origin Labeling Act and Successfully Secured a Non-Prosecution Decision from the Prosecution
1. Case OverviewA well-known food company ("Company T"). was booked for investigation on suspicion of making misleading country-of-origin labeling by marking products that partially used imported raw materials as "domestic (Korean origin)," thereby creating a risk of confusion regarding origin. The company was investigated by the Special Judicial Police of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service. Thereafter, in June 2025, the Special Judicial Police forwarded the case to the prosecution with an opinion for indictment against both the employee in charge of country-of-origin labeling and Company T. 2. Our Arguments and RoleBased on facts identified through a meticulous review of the processes by which the suspects registered products on online sales channels, we actively argued that the suspects lacked intent to violate the Country-of-Origin Labeling Act. Specifically, we asserted, inter alia, that: Under Article 5(1)3 of the Country-of-Origin Labeling Act, in the case of "processed agricultural and fishery products processed domestically," the law requires labeling of the origin of the raw materials, not the processed product itself, and that the suspects had accurately labeled the origin of each raw material in accordance with this provision; The labeling of the product itself as "domestic" occurred only on certain sales channels; The reason that the product itself was labeled as "domestic" on some channels was that, under the product registration systems of those particular sales platforms, sellers were required to enter not only the origin of each raw material but also the origin of the product itself, and the suspects therefore entered the country of manufacture of the product, rather than the origin of the raw materials. On this basis, we actively argued that the suspects had no intent to violate the Country-of-Origin Labeling Act. Following supplementary investigation, the Special Judicial Police of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service resent the case with an opinion of no charges against the suspects, and the prosecution, accepting our arguments, ultimately rendered a final decision of non-prosecution. 3. Outcome and Significance of the CaseUltimately, both the Special Judicial Police of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service and the prosecution fully accepted our arguments and concluded that no intent to violate the Country-of-Origin Labeling Act could be recognized. Accordingly, all booked charges against the suspects were dismissed as "no suspicion (no charges)." By bringing the case to a conclusion of no charges, we successfully eliminated the legal and business risks borne by Company T. In particular, as a food company, it was able to clear suspicions of falsely labeling country of origin and thereby restore its reputation. The manner in which we assisted Company T in this case will serve as a meaningful reference precedent for future responses to investigations involving alleged violations of the Country-of-Origin Labeling Act.
2026. 01. 30
企业刑事
[Corporate Criminal] Case in Which a Liquor Distribution Company and Its Responsible Employee, Booked on Charges of Misleading Origin Labeling of a Product Endorsed by a Famous Celebrity Investor, Were Successfully Defended to Obtain a Non-Indictment Decision from the Prosecution
1. Overview of the Case An agricultural corporation ("Corporation B") is a liquor distribution company established with the participation of a famous celebrity as an investor. The company came under investigation by the Special Judicial Police of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service on charges of having made labeling likely to cause confusion as to the country of origin by indicating the origin of a product—sold using the same celebrity as an advertising model—as "domestic." 2. Our Arguments and RoleWe attended the investigation conducted by the Special Judicial Police and actively argued in defense that the suspects lacked intent to violate the Country of Origin Labeling Act. Specifically, we asserted that: under the Country of Origin Labeling Act, processed agricultural and fishery products processed domestically are required to indicate the country of origin of the raw materials, rather than that of the processed product itself, and the suspects had accurately indicated the origin of each raw material; the product registration systems of the respective sales channels were structured in a way that could cause confusion as to whether the information requested concerned the origin of each raw material or the country in which the product was manufactured; and the product at issue was a traditional liquor that was in fact manufactured domestically. Based on these points, we vigorously argued that the suspects had no intent to violate the Country of Origin Labeling Act. 3. Outcome and Significance of the CaseThe prosecution fully accepted our arguments and concluded that intent to violate the Country of Origin Labeling Act could not be recognized, thereby rendering a determination of "no charges" with respect to all alleged offenses. By bringing this case to a close with a finding of no charges, we successfully eliminated the risks borne by Corporation B. In particular, although Corporation B is a company engaged in the sale of traditional liquor, it was able to dispel the stigma of having falsely indicated the country of origin. The manner in which we assisted Corporation B in this case will serve as a meaningful reference for future responses to investigations concerning alleged violations of the Country of Origin Labeling Act.
2026. 01. 30
企业刑事
[Anti-Corruption and Financial Economic Crimes] Case in Which Criminal Charges Were Filed Against a Counterparty Who Had Usurped a Jointly Operated Company and Failed to Compensate for the Resulting Damage, Leading to the Swift Recovery of Losses Through a Settlement
1. Overview of the Casea. Party Represented by Barun LawAn entrepreneur who established a pump manufacturing and sales company and operated the business jointly with the accused.b. Background of the CaseThe client, having been credit-delinquent, had entrusted all of his shares (50%) to the accused under a nominee arrangement and jointly managed the company. However, the accused, while serving as the representative director, breached his fiduciary duties by transferring shares of a subsidiary to his brother-in-law. When the accused was later requested to return the shares owned by the client, he engaged in fraudulent conduct by entering into an invalid stock option agreement and forcing the client to resign, thereby evading the obligation to pay consideration for the client's equity interest. In addition, the accused further embezzled funds of the company under his management through various means.2. Our Arguments and RoleThrough multiple consultations with the client, who sought prompt recovery of damages, we clearly identified that the accused's various acts constituted conduct subject to criminal punishment. We advised that, prior to filing a civil action, initiating criminal proceedings would be the most expedient means of achieving recovery of damages.Based on the criminal facts organized by us, the client filed a criminal complaint against the accused and provided statements to the police on multiple occasions as the complainant.Before receiving our assistance, the accused had neither met with nor responded to the client. However, after reviewing the criminal allegations set forth by us, the accused recognized the seriousness of the situation (including the possibility of detention if the allegations were substantiated) and initiated settlement discussions.While receiving our advice, the client adjusted the wording of the settlement agreement and implemented safeguards to ensure secure recovery of damages. The client promptly received a portion of the damages, secured long-term recovery of the remaining amount, and stipulated a contractual penalty in the event of breach. After notarizing the settlement agreement containing these terms, the client withdrew the criminal complaint, thereby bringing the matter to a close.3. Outcome and SignificanceThe client sought our assistance on the grounds that, although his company had been usurped by the accused, the accused refused to meet or engage with him, leaving him with no viable means of recovering his losses.Through meticulous legal analysis, we identified the criminal offenses for which the accused could be held criminally liable. As a result of filing the criminal complaint based on these findings, the client was able to achieve swift recovery of damages from the accused.
2026. 01. 30
金融诉讼
[Financial Litigation] Case in Which Barun Law Represented a Bank in Hong Kong H-Index ELS Disputes and Achieved a Complete Victory
1. Overview of the Case After an investor subscribed to a Hong Kong H-Index–linked ELS (Equity-Linked Securities) specific money trust product and losses were fixed upon maturity, the investor filed claims against the bank seeking rescission based on mistake, restitution of unjust enrichment, and damages for tort. 2. Key IssuesThe primary issues in dispute were the investor's claims for rescission due to mistake or fraud and restitution of unjust enrichment (primary claims), as well as claims for damages in tort based on alleged violations of the suitability principle, duty of explanation, and improper solicitation under the Capital Markets Act (alternative claims). 3. Our RoleRepresenting the bank, we persuasively demonstrated the legality of the sales process and the investor's sufficient understanding and informed decision-making by substantiating specific facts concerning the investor's prior investment experience, financial knowledge, history of investing in high-risk assets, and the circumstances surrounding the investment in question. 4. Court's JudgmentThe court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations regarding violations of the suitability principle, duty of explanation, improper solicitation, or tortious conduct, and found that the defendant bank had faithfully complied with lawful sales procedures in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims in their entirety. 5. Significance of the JudgmentThis case squarely addressed disputes commonly raised in Hong Kong H-Index ELS investor litigation, including rescission based on mistake or fraud and alleged violations of the suitability principle, duty of explanation, and improper solicitation under the Capital Markets Act. By affirming the legality of the bank's sales procedures through proof of the investor's capacity for understanding and the specific investment circumstances, the judgment upheld both the legitimacy of the bank's conduct and the principle that investment decisions are made at the investor's own responsibility.
2026. 01. 30
M&A/公司治理结构
[M&A] Case in Which Buyer-Side Legal Advisory Was Provided for SR Corporation's Acquisition of All Shares of Greensystem Co., Ltd.
Barun Law LLC provided buyer-side legal advisory services to SR Corporation ("SR") in connection with its acquisition of all issued shares of Greensystem Co., Ltd. ("Greensystem," and the transaction, the "Transaction"), successfully bringing the Transaction to completion. SR is engaged in businesses including the manufacture of railway signaling equipment and the provision of railway research and development services. Greensystem, on the other hand, operates a business focused on the development of integrated railway control systems and signaling control system software. SR pursued the acquisition of Greensystem in order to internalize core technologies in the control and signaling fields and to achieve vertical integration spanning from signaling equipment manufacturing to system development. Accordingly, on December 31, 2025, SR entered into a share purchase agreement with the existing shareholders of Greensystem and completed the Transaction on January 5, 2026. Through the Transaction, SR established a foundation for enhancing operational efficiency and further strengthening its technological competitiveness in the railway signaling equipment manufacturing business by internalizing technologies related to integrated railway control and signaling control systems. In connection with the Transaction, we provided comprehensive and professional legal advisory services throughout the entire process, including from the memorandum of understanding (MOU) stage, legal due diligence (LDD) on Greensystem, negotiations regarding purchase price adjustments, drafting and review of the share purchase agreement (SPA), and transaction closing.
2026. 01. 30
