1.

Introduction of ACP: Amendment of Attorney-At-Law Act

As noted above, the National Assembly recently passed an amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act. Under the amended law, attorneys and clients now have statutory grounds to refuse the disclosure of confidential communications and work products prepared in anticipation of legal proceedings, inquiries, or investigations. In the context of internal investigations, the newly introduced ACP regime is expected to provide a legal basis for protecting the content and results of internal investigations, including any measures taken as a result. Furthermore, this will reduce the risk of internal investigation-related documents from being unilaterally disclosed or obtained by regulatory authorities, allowing companies to conduct a more thorough and effective internal investigation.
 

2.

Personal Information Submitted to Investigative Authorities by Whistleblowers

A recent case examined whether a whistleblower violated the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”) by submitting evidence—including CCTV footage containing personal data—to the police while reporting corruption involving a local agricultural cooperative head.
 
The Supreme Court held that submitting evidence containing personal information to investigative agencies for the purpose of substantiating or exercising the right to defense against a criminal complaint may be considered not to violate social norms. Consequently, under Article 20 of the Criminal Code, such submissions may be considered justified. The court further held that the determination of a “justifiable” disclosure must be made reasonably by considering the totality of circumstances in the case, including the following factors:
 

• The circumstances and purpose under which the personal data was collected, retained, and submitted;

• The party to whom the personal data was submitted;

• Whether the data was minimal to achieve the purpose of the submission;

• Whether measures were taken to protect the personal data;

• The content, nature, and volume of the personal data submitted;

• The privacy interests of the data subject being infringed;

• Whether there were alternative means of achieving the objective; and

• Circumstances that led to the disclosure of personal information instead of relying on alternative means (Supreme Court Decision No. 2023 Do 17590, issued on July 18, 2025).

This decision is notable because it sets out a clear standard for when the submission of evidence containing personal data to investigative authorities, without the data subject’s consent, may be regarded as a “justifiable.” We expect this decision to be cited frequently going forward in defense of the whistleblower’s rights in future internal investigation practice.
 

3.

Proposed Amendments to the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act

Several amendments to the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act have been proposed to strengthen the social foundation for public interest reporting and enhance the effectiveness of whistleblower safeguards. The key highlights of these proposals are as follows:
 

• Require external experts to participate in the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) decision-making process for protection measures to enhance fairness, expertise, and credibility of the whistleblower protection system (Proposed by Rep. Kim Young-Jin).
   

• Strengthen whistleblower protection by: (1) expanding the scope of protection by broadly defining “acts violating the public interest” as any act infringing the public interest, rather than the current definition that is limited to an enumerated list of prohibited conduct; (2) expanding the definition of “public interest whistleblowers” to include those who assist the whistleblower; (3) include the abuse of procedural legal rights (e.g., filing retaliatory civil or criminal lawsuits to pressure whistleblowers) as a prohibited “adverse measure”; and (4) enhancing liability relief by mandating the reduction or exemption of criminal sanctions for offenses related to public interest whistleblowing (Proposed by Rep. Kim Nam-Geun).
   

• Strengthen confidentiality of “public interest whistleblowers” by imposing sanctions on those who report whistleblowers to investigative agencies for the purpose of uncovering their identity, or who leak whistleblower information through willful misconduct or gross negligence (Proposed by Rep. Jeon Hyun-Heui).
   

• Empower authorities to demand a provisional stay on any pending disciplinary or adverse administrative procedures against a whistleblower, and expand the scope of punitive damages to five times the amount of loss suffered by the whistleblower (Proposed by Rep. Shin Jang-Shik).
   

If adopted, the above proposed measures are expected to create a safer environment for whistleblowers to report misconduct without fear of identity exposure or reprisal, which in turn would allow companies and public institutions to detect and correct potential compliance risks at an earlier stage.