Recent high-profile cases have revealed the underlying differences in legal judgments.

Do Kwon received a 15-year sentence for $4 billion fraud related to the Terra-Luna project, while SBF was sentenced to 25 years for $11 billion fraud related to FTX. You read that right—despite a nearly fourfold larger financial loss, the sentence was 10 years shorter. Where does this discrepancy come from?

**Attitude Makes All the Difference**

Kwon pleaded guilty in August and took responsibility voluntarily. He wrote a letter to the court, admitting to the breach of trust with victims, and acknowledged that his arrogance led to misleading the community. The court heard hundreds of victim statements; Kwon was present throughout and directly apologized to the victims.

SBF chose the defense route. He insisted that FTX was not a fraud, but merely a liquidity crisis. The jury took only four hours to convict him. What's worse, Judge Kaplan found that he committed multiple perjuries during the trial, describing his statements as "the most cunning testimony seen in decades of trials." He also attempted to contact witnesses before the trial to influence them.

**Location Is Also a Variable**

Kwon's sentencing had a special factor—his 15 years in the U.S. are just the beginning. After serving his sentence in the U.S., Korea still has unresolved charges totaling up to 40 years waiting for him. The judge explicitly considered this when sentencing.

SBF doesn't have this "benefit." He has no other pending cases in different countries, so these 25 years are essentially his final sentence (unless appealed and overturned).

These two cases actually teach the crypto community a harsh reality: no matter how big the number, attitude can influence the verdict. Admitting fault is far more advantageous than arguing innocence.