I think that Do Kwon is civilly responsible but criminally not guilty, what are the Americans' thoughts on this?

As a South Korean lawyer (not attorney), I would like to present an opinion.

It is true that Do Kwon made a mistake, but at least under Korean law, he is not criminally guilty. To Do Kwon, two charges can be examined: one is a violation of the Similar Receipt Prohibition Act(SRPA) and the other is a violation of the Capital Markets Act(CMA).

First, we look at the SRPA.

This law applies only to money(fiat). That's, it does not apply to coins. It is therefore clear that he does not violate this law.

In terms of the Capital Markets Act(CMA) ,

South Korean prosecutors are sticking to the law. In other words, they argue that TerraLuna under the CMA corresponds to "investment contract securities(ICS)". But this part is controversial. To start with the conclusion, this is an unauthorized change in interpretation. In more detail,

The interpretation of a law or a provision can change with changes in times or situations. For example, if an act was explicitly or implicitly judged to be legal three years ago, but it is necessary to define the act as illegal according to the change of the times, it is possible to change this interpretation. However, even in this case, it is common to go through changes to existing regulations. At the very least, the Supreme Court undergoes an explicit procedure called case change. It is directly contrary to the principle of Nulla poena sine lege (no penalty without law at the time) to determine that past acts are retroactively illegal without going through such amendments to laws or changes to precedents. Therefore, Do Kwon was legitimate based on the law at the time of the act.

The Ripple lawsuit has already been filed at the end of 2020, but, since then, South Korean prosecutors have not regulated or prosecuted any of the South Korean DeFies. They didn't even launch an investigation. In other words, Defi was legal at the time and was not classified as securities. That was the law of the day and also the reality. Unlike the United States, South Korea has its own legal interpretation as an independent country. According to this, TerraLuna does not belong to securities. This is exactly the same as TerraLuna not violating the SRPA. If TerraLuna is to be classified as a securities, in the case of Korea, a statute law country, it is necessary to revise the law and clarify it.

There is a grand principle of law. An ambiguous law is null and void. Article 4 (6) of the CMA did not regard coins as securities (investment contract securities) or at least it was ambiguous on that point. Therefore, in order to include coins as securities in the future, there must be an amendment to clarify the laws and regulations, or at least an explicit case change of the court.

Nevertheless, why did the Korean prosecution issue an arrest warrant for Do Kwon even in this obvious legal interpretation situation? The reason is simple. This is a reason anyone can easily understand. The reason is because the issue has become too politically large. If the prosecution does not indict Do Kwon, it should be subjected to huge public criticism. It's just this. There is no other reason. If this was a small case, there was no possibility that an arrest warrant would be issued to Do Kwon.

The South Korean prosecution should promise to investigate Do Kwon without detention when he returns to Korea. This is a case in which an arrest warrant was issued for the benefit of the prosecutor (to avoid criticism from the public) against an innocent person (which, of course, does not mean that he is not civil liable). If the prosecution says it will investigate him in custody, there is no reason for Do Kwon to return home. The prosecution also knows that it is ashamed of itself. Most lawyers have the same perception. However, the emotional public opinion of the ignorant people is making Do Kwon wander abroad. In order to solve this problem, it is appropriate for the prosecution to promise an investigation without detention and only to take measures to ban departure. If the prosecution does not accept this, Kwon Do-hyung may refuse to enter home. This is not against conscience.

If the Korean prosecution guarantees the investigation without detention, it is desirable for Do Kwon to enter Korea and stand trial. South Korean judges are not fools. It can be seen from the recent provisional disposition case of Lee Joon-seok. South Korean judges are reliable. The current arrest warrant was issued by the court, namely by the judge, not because Do Kwon was guilty, but only because he did not respond to the summons. It is only a reason that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. In short, only the prosecutor needs to change his mind. If the prosecutor insists on an arrest investigation until the end, this can be a justifiable reason for the Do-kwon not to respond to the summon.