In a matter involving an investigation request by the Financial Supervisory Service to an investigative agency of a fintech company, we responded to the client's investigation and revealed the unfairness of the investigation request, resulting in a non-remand decision.

Company A is a startup company that aims to develop and supply application software. Company A decided that a specialized SNS service for stock investors would be successful and distributed application B, which was created during the development process, on the application market.

After confirming that Company A developed and distributed App B, the Financial Supervisory Service determined that Company A was operating a credit information management business without a license, and filed a prosecution against Company A for violating the Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information. Since B App has the function of collecting and providing users' credit information, there were some similarities with the method of the credit information management business. After receiving the notification from the investigative agency, Company A was confused and did not know how to respond, so it sought help from Cha & Kwon Law Offices, which has extensive experience in the financial industry.

After consulting with Company A, we determined that Company A had developed and distributed the B App and that there was a crawl of credit information, and it was difficult to deny it. Accordingly, we decided that the main way to respond was to (1) explain the supervisory agency's investigation procedure and judgment process, and (2) emphasize the fact that in general, reasonable investigations can be made in the supervisory agency's practice, but in some cases, unreasonable cases can also be investigated, and (3) emphasize the difference between the client's business and the general business type of the credit information management business, based on the development situation, development intention, number of users, app functions, company situation, and company personnel composition.

Cha & Kwon Law Offices was able to convince the investigative agency that the client was not operating a credit management business without a license, which led to the investigative agency's judgment that “the client was not operating a credit management business without a license.” In the end, the investigative agency reviewed Cha & Kwon Law Offices's arguments and decided not to prosecute the client for the alleged violation of the Credit Information Act.

However, it is possible to defend against unwarranted referrals by actively explaining the practices of the relevant authorities, explaining that while such practices are reasonable in most cases, there may be cases where referrals are unwarranted, and that this case is one such case, and finally explaining the differences between the facts of the referral and the client's work.

Such a strategy requires a great deal of expertise. Based on our experience in various financial fields, we analyzed the case from a different perspective than the authorities and proved that Mr. A was not guilty of any crime. Cha & Kwon Law Offices is committed to providing legal assistance to our clients based on our extensive research and experience so that they do not suffer unreasonable penalties.