Hello, I am Heejun Lee, an attorney at Yeoam Law Firm in Seoul.
When I speak with salon owners in Korea, I often hear the same request after a stylist leaves: “I want to file a criminal complaint for breach of the non-compete.” The scenario below is a fictional composite of several consultations.
“A stylist who worked with me for five years quit and opened a salon 200 metres away. Regular customers followed her one after another, and styling photos taken in my salon are now on her Instagram. For a few months before she left, some cash and bank-transfer payments never seemed to show up in our sales. Can I file a criminal complaint for breaching the non-compete?”
The frustration is understandable. However, a criminal complaint cannot rest on the feeling that someone acted unfairly. Each act must be checked against the elements of a specific offence. I have covered the validity of non-compete clauses and penalties in an earlier post and whether customer contacts are trade secrets in another post. This post looks at which crimes may apply to a departing stylist under Korean law, and when they are hard to establish, based on Korean court decisions.
1. Breaching a non-compete is not a crime in itself
This is the starting point. A non-compete clause is a contract between the salon owner and the stylist, and breaking it is a breach of contract. No criminal provision punishes that breach as such. It is dealt with through civil proceedings: contractual penalties, damages and injunctions to stop the competing business.
If a complaint says only that “the stylist breached the non-compete”, Korean investigators are likely to treat it as a civil dispute and close the case. To consider criminal charges, you need concrete acts beyond the competition itself: taking salon data while still working there, using salon money for personal purposes, diverting bookings through false statements, or using photos or customer data without permission.
2. Occupational breach of trust: who did it, and when?
Occupational breach of trust (Criminal Act, Article 356, Article 355(2)) applies when a person handling another’s affairs violates their duty, obtains a benefit and causes loss. In salon cases there are two hurdles.
First, is the stylist “a person handling another’s affairs”? In a 2020 en banc decision, the Supreme Court of Korea made clear that the relationship must go beyond the ordinary opposing interests of contracting parties: its essential content must be protecting or managing the other party’s property based on trust. A freelance stylist who shares revenue at a fixed rate and manages their own customers can often be seen as running their own business, so this requirement is frequently hard to meet. An employed manager in charge of the salon’s customer records, bookings and sales is a different matter.
Second, did the act happen during employment? In a 2017 decision, the Supreme Court held that, absent special circumstances, a former employee is no longer a person handling the company’s affairs, so using materials after leaving does not create a separate breach of trust. What matters is taking materials while still employed. In a 2008 decision, the Court held that removing undisclosed material that the company produced with significant time and cost can be occupational breach of trust even if it is not a trade secret, and that failing to return or delete lawfully held material on departure is treated the same way.
For a salon, downloading or photographing the entire customer list and treatment history from the customer-management software just before leaving may be worth examining. By contrast, Korean courts have declined to treat regular customers’ numbers learned naturally through booking messages or Instagram DMs as key business assets (see this post), so that alone is unlikely to be enough.
3. Occupational embezzlement: follow the payments
In practice, the clearest problem is money. Occupational embezzlement (Criminal Act, Article 356, Article 355(1)) applies when a person holding another’s property in the course of their work misappropriates it. If a stylist takes treatment fees or prepaid-card payments that customers owe the salon into a personal account and spends them, this offence comes into play.
In one appellate case, the Daejeon District Court upheld a two-year prison sentence for occupational embezzlement against a hair stylist who had worked at a salon for almost nine years and, over about six years, took more than KRW 100 million in customers’ prepaid-card payments and other fees into a personal account in more than 200 transfers. The fact that the stylist continued after being caught and forgiven once appears to have weighed against them.
Even for a freelance stylist, custodian status can be recognised if the customer’s payment belongs to the salon until settlement. Where the stylist’s commission share is mixed in, however, the amount embezzled will be disputed, so the settlement terms in the contract and card and bank records should be organised together.
4. Obstruction of business: promotion is not obstruction
Opening a new salon and telling customers about it is ordinary competition. Obstruction of business (Criminal Act, Article 314) becomes relevant when false information, deception or force is involved.
Examples include telling customers that “the old salon is about to close” or that “all bookings were cancelled because the owner changed” in order to move bookings, or cancelling or changing other stylists’ bookings in the salon’s booking system while still employed. Interfering with business by entering false data into or disrupting a computer system falls under paragraph 2 of the same article. If false rumours damaged the salon’s or owner’s credit, damage to credit (Article 313) or defamation may also be considered.
5. Styling photos: start with who took them
Former stylists often use photos taken at the salon on personal accounts or to promote their new salon. Copyright infringement can be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million under Article 136(1) of the Copyright Act, but two questions come first.
First, who owns the copyright? In principle, the author of a photo is the person who took it. If the stylist took the photo, the stylist is likely the author. For the salon to claim rights, the owner or a photographer hired by the salon must have taken it, or the requirements for a work made for hire (Copyright Act, Article 9), such as an employee creating it in the course of work and the salon publishing it in its own name, must be met.
Second, is it creative? In a 2006 decision, the Supreme Court held that a photo is protected only if the photographer’s individuality shows in choices such as subject, composition, light, camera angle and timing. It found that a photo of a restaurant interior that anyone would take in much the same way was not protected, while a panoramic interior photo of a jjimjilbang (Korean bathhouse) was. Styling photos with deliberate lighting and composition may qualify, but simple record shots of the result may not.
Copyright infringement is also, in principle, a complaint-only offence (Copyright Act, Article 140), so the complaint must be filed within six months of learning who the offender is. Remember too that the portrait rights of customers shown in the photos belong to the customers, not the salon.
6. Customer lists: the Personal Information Protection Act
Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act prohibits anyone who processes or has processed personal information from disclosing information learned at work or providing it to others without authority (item 2), and from using or leaking another person’s personal information without legitimate authority (item 3). Violations can be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million under Article 71, items 9 and 10.
The typical case is taking the salon’s entire customer list on departure and sending promotional messages for the new salon. Whether numbers customers gave the stylist directly, or contacts saved naturally on the stylist’s phone, are treated the same way is disputed. The salon, as the party collecting and storing customer data, also has duties of its own, so it is worth reviewing how customer data has been shared with stylists (see this post).
7. What to check before filing
Once filed, a criminal complaint is hard to undo, and a weak one only prolongs the dispute. Check the following first.
– Contract type: employment contract or revenue-sharing freelance contract
– Timing: during employment or after departure
– Money trail: salon card-terminal and bank sales versus deposits into the stylist’s personal accounts
– System records: per-account access, viewing and download logs in the customer software, and booking cancellations or changes
– Photos: original files, device, photographer and the date first posted on the salon’s account
– Time: six months from learning the offender for complaint-only offences, and evidence disappears even sooner
It also helps to decide how civil steps, such as an injunction or a claim for penalties and damages, will run alongside the complaint. Criminal proceedings aim at punishment and do not directly compensate the salon’s loss.
8. Frequently asked questions
Q. Is breaching a non-compete clause enough for a criminal complaint in Korea?
No. Breaching a non-compete agreement is a breach of contract and is not a crime in itself. It is handled through civil remedies such as contractual penalties, damages and injunctions. A criminal complaint makes sense only when there is a separate act that meets the elements of an offence such as breach of trust, embezzlement or obstruction of business.
Q. Can a freelance (commission-based) stylist be charged with occupational breach of trust or embezzlement?
Breach of trust requires a position of trust in which the stylist protects or manages the salon’s property, which is often hard to establish for an independent stylist who shares revenue. Embezzlement is different: if customer payments belonged to the salon until settlement and the stylist kept them, it can apply regardless of the contract type.
Q. Is it copyright infringement if a former stylist posts styling photos taken at the salon?
First ask who took the photo. If the stylist took it, the stylist is likely the author. The salon can claim rights only if the owner or a hired photographer took it, or if the requirements for a work made for hire are met. Simple record shots may also lack the creativity needed for protection.
Q. How long do I have to file a complaint?
For complaint-only offences such as copyright infringement, the complaint must be filed within six months of learning who the offender is. Breach of trust, embezzlement and obstruction of business are not complaint-only offences, but evidence should still be secured quickly.
Final thoughts
In disputes with former stylists, a criminal complaint works when it targets specific unlawful acts committed along the way, not the competition itself. Once the contract, sales data, system logs and original photos are organised, it becomes clear whether to put the weight on criminal or civil proceedings.
If you are considering a criminal complaint after a stylist left, or have been accused and need to respond, please gather your contract, sales and payment records and the posts in question, and contact me via the KakaoTalk open chat below or by phone (+82-10-4692-6821). Consultations are available in English, German, French and Korean. You can also use the contact form.
More videos on Korean legal cases are on my YouTube channel (in Korean).
Related reading
Attorney responsible for this advertisement: Heejun Lee, Partner, Yeoam Law Firm · Tel. +82-10-4692-6821
This post is general information on Korean law. The outcome in any specific case depends on the facts, including the contract type, the timing of the acts and the available evidence. The scenario above is a fictional composite of several consultations.
Read in other languages: 한국어 · Français · Deutsch
#KoreaHairSalon #HairStylistKorea #NonCompeteKorea #BreachOfTrust #EmbezzlementKorea #ObstructionOfBusiness #PhotoCopyright #PIPAKorea #KoreanCriminalLaw #LawyerInSeoul #HeejunLee #KoreanLawyer #LawyerInKorea #KoreaLawyer
Leave a Reply