Ruling: Crackdown Carried Out After Entering a Factory Without Consent Was Not a Lawful Execution of Official Duties

Who this helps

This may help people looking into a case where an immigration crackdown took place at a workplace such as a factory, and the person was later tried for obstructing it.

Case overview

Court

Daegu District Court

Date of judgment

Apr 29, 2011 (Fri)

Topic

Criminal Cases

Original title (Korean)

출입국관리사무소 공무원이 공장관리자의 동의 없이 공장에 들어가 불법체류자 단속업무를 한 것은 적법한 공무집행으로 볼 수…

A person who runs a glove manufacturing business was tried on the charge of obstructing a crackdown on illegal residents at the factory. The first trial found the person guilty, and the defendant appealed. The charges included blocking the enforcement vehicle from leaving, pushing enforcement team members, and using abusive language.

Is it obstruction of official duties to block a crackdown carried out after entering a factory without the manager's consent?

A man who runs a glove factory was tried on a charge of obstructing a crackdown on undocumented foreign residents. The charges said he blocked the enforcement vehicle from leaving, pushed an enforcement officer, and used abusive language. The key question was whether a crackdown begun by officials entering the factory without the factory manager's consent was a lawful execution of official duties. The court found it was not lawful, so the crime of obstructing official duties did not apply.

How the court ruled

The court found that the enforcement officials entered the factory and began the crackdown without the factory manager's consent or permission. It therefore judged that the crackdown could not be regarded as a lawful execution of official duties, and that the offense of obstructing official duties was not established. The court found that the officials' act of identifying themselves to the manager and announcing that they had come to carry out a crackdown was only a one-sided notice, not the obtaining of consent. The judgment of the first trial was overturned and the defendant was found not guilty.

What to check in a similar situation

The procedure and legal basis for workplace crackdowns can be checked with immigration and foreign national offices. The progress of a trial and the content of a ruling can be checked with the court that has jurisdiction.

• Find support centers
• Emergency phone numbers
• Contacts: Korea Legal Aid Corporation 132

Terms explained

Obstruction of official duties

This is an offense that arises when someone interferes with a public official who is lawfully doing their job. In this ruling, the court found the offense does not apply when the official's duty was not lawful.

Lawful execution of official duties

This means a public official carrying out their work through procedures that follow the law. Here, the court found that a crackdown begun by entering a factory without consent did not qualify.

Crackdown on undocumented residents

This is the work of immigration office officials who check foreign nationals staying without legal status and take action. It was the activity at issue in this case.

More rulings on this topic

• Ruling sentencing a defendant to 1 year in prison for illegal entry, illegal stay and aiding another person's illegal entry · Busan District Court
• Students' submission of bank balance certificate found to be an application by improper means · Seoul Eastern District Court
• Court upholds departure order for foreign national fined for drunk driving · Daegu District Court

See all 28 rulings on Criminal Cases →

Frequently asked questions

Who was put on trial?

A factory operator in the glove manufacturing business was tried on a charge of obstructing a crackdown on undocumented residents. The operator appealed after being found guilty at the first trial.

How did the court rule?

The court found that officials began the crackdown by entering the factory without the factory manager's consent or permission. It held this was not a lawful execution of official duties, overturned the first verdict, and acquitted the operator.

Does telling the manager who they are and that they came to crack down count as getting consent?

In this case, the court viewed that kind of notice as a one-sided announcement, not as obtaining consent. This was the court's judgment in this case, and it cannot be said to apply in the same way to other cases.