After months of legal tension and public scrutiny, celebrity chef and entrepreneur Paik Jong-won can finally let out a quiet breath of relief. Prosecutors in Seoul have decided not to indict the founder and CEO of The Born Korea, the company behind a wide range of popular food products and restaurants, in connection with allegations that the business mislabeled the origins of ingredients in some of its offerings. The decision, announced on September 16 by the Criminal Division 2 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, essentially closes the criminal chapter for Paik personally, even as the corporate body and one employee now face formal charges. For a man whose public persona has been built on warmth, culinary expertise, and a relatable, hardworking image, the news marks a significant turn in a story that began with suspicion and could have ended much differently. But while Paik’s personal legal exposure has faded, the shadow of the controversy has not entirely lifted, and the path ahead for The Born Korea remains complicated.
The prosecutors’ decision was precise in its legal reasoning. They concluded that it was difficult to establish charges against Paik Jong-won for violating the Food Labeling and Advertising Act, a law that generally prohibits false or exaggerated claims about food products. The investigation had focused on whether Paik bore personal responsibility for advertisements that were alleged to have misled consumers. In the end, the evidence did not persuade prosecutors that he had intentionally engaged in any unlawful conduct. However, the same cannot be said for the corporation itself. The Born Korea, as a legal entity, along with an employee identified only as A, was indicted on charges of intentional false advertising. That employee was said to be in charge of home shopping for the distribution business team that handled the Deopjuk product at the center of the initial complaint. This distinction between the leader and the organization is an important one, and it speaks to the way corporate liability is sometimes separated from individual guilt, especially when a company has layers of staff and delegated responsibilities.
To understand how this case reached such a delicate legal crossroads, it helps to look back at the beginning. The controversy started in March of last year, when the Seoul Gangnam Police Station received a complaint and petition accusing The Born Korea of deceptive marketing. At the heart of the matter was Deopjuk, a line of rice porridge products that has become quite popular in South Korea’s competitive convenience food market. The complainants alleged that the company used farmed shrimp from Vietnam in Deopjuk while using the expression “natural” in its advertisements. For many consumers, the word natural carries a powerful connotation, suggesting purity, quality, and perhaps even a local or more wholesome origin. The idea that a product marketed with such a word might contain imported, farm-raised seafood struck many as misleading. The police took the complaint seriously and launched a formal investigation. As part of that process, Paik Jong-won was summoned to appear as a suspect and was questioned for roughly five hours. It was an uncomfortable moment for one of the country’s most visible food entrepreneurs, and the image of a beloved television chef sitting in an interrogation room quickly captured public attention.
After completing its initial review, the police in October of the same year decided not to transfer Paik’s case to prosecutors, saying there was not enough evidence to support charges against him. In the Korean criminal justice system, this kind of “no transfer” decision is significant because it means the police believed the allegations lacked the legal weight needed to proceed. But the story did not end there. The complainant raised an objection, and the police were required to revisit the matter. During this reinvestigation, investigators secured internal business records from The Born Korea and reportedly reached a telling conclusion: the Deopjuk advertisement that had drawn so much criticism was processed through final approval by lower-level staff, not by the CEO himself. This detail, if accurate, helps explain why Paik was gradually moving away from the center of legal blame. In a large organization, decisions about marketing copy are often made by mid-level managers, and while the person at the top may be criticized for poor oversight, legal responsibility for a specific act of false advertising often rests with those who directly prepared and approved the material.
Prosecutors, after conducting supplementary investigations of their own, arrived at a similar view. They concluded that there were no circumstances indicating Paik Jong-won was directly involved in the Deopjuk advertisement or, more importantly, that he had any knowledge of or intent to mislead consumers. That was the critical threshold. Under South Korean law, proving a violation of the Food Labeling and Advertising Act generally requires showing that the accused acted intentionally or knowingly to make false or misleading claims. For a CEO who likely never saw the advertisement until after it went out, proving such intent would be difficult. Still, the legal system allows for the punishment of corporations and their employees even when top executives are not personally implicated. That is why The Born Korea and employee A now find themselves facing trial. The employee, who handled home shopping duties for the Deopjuk product, is accused of playing a role in the intentional false advertising. The company, as a corporate employer, is also being held to account. This creates a strange and somewhat contradictory picture: the head of the company is cleared, but the company itself remains in legal trouble.
Beyond the Deopjuk case, there was another, related thread that also needed to be resolved. Police had previously forwarded a separate case to prosecutors involving The Born Korea corporation and a marketing team social media employee. In that instance, the allegations centered on the promotion of a product called “Chewy Sweet Potato Bread,” with claims that consumers might have been misled into thinking some ingredients were of domestic origin. This is a particularly sensitive issue in South Korea, where consumers place a high value on locally sourced food and often connect domestic ingredients with quality and safety. Concerns about foreign ingredients being quietly substituted or obscured can provoke strong reactions. However, after reviewing the evidence in this second case, prosecutors decided not to indict the corporation or the social media employee. They stated that there was no intention to falsify the origin of ingredients. In other words, whatever ambiguity existed in the marketing language, it did not rise to the level of deliberate deception. For The Born Korea, this second decision helped somewhat, reinforcing the argument that the company’s marketing practices, while perhaps sloppy or vague in places, were not part of a coordinated scheme to cheat consumers.
For Paik Jong-won, this legal outcome is deeply meaningful on both a personal and professional level. He is not just a CEO; he is one of South Korea’s most beloved culinary figures, known for his television appearances, his approachable cooking style, and his entrepreneurial instincts. Over the years, The Born Korea has grown into a substantial food empire, and Paik’s name alone has become a brand that consumers trust. Even the suggestion that he might have been involved in deceiving customers could have caused serious damage to everything he has built. His legal team is likely relieved that prosecutors recognized the absence of direct involvement, and Paik himself can now move forward without the immediate threat of criminal prosecution. But the court of public opinion operates on its own rules. For many ordinary shoppers, the distinction between a hands-off CEO and a company that allowed misleading advertisements to pass through its system may feel too subtle. The fact that The Born Korea and one of its employees still have to stand trial means the controversy is not over. It will continue to be discussed, analyzed, and perhaps used as a cautionary tale about how quickly trust can be tested in the food industry. In that sense, the journey for Paik and The Born Korea may be entering a new chapter, one in which the company has to prove not just legal innocence but also moral responsibility, careful oversight, and a genuine commitment to clear, honest communication with the people who buy and eat its products.