Evidence gathered when immigration officers pushed ahead with an inspection of a massage parlor over the owner's objection cannot support a conviction, the Supreme Court has ruled. The decision finalized an acquittal for the owner, who had been charged with employing foreign nationals without work authorization.
The Supreme Court's Second Division, presided over by Justice Eom Sang-pil, recently upheld a lower court ruling that acquitted the owner, identified as A, in an appeal over alleged violations of the Immigration Act, according to legal sources on the 13th.
A, who operated a massage parlor in Mokpo, Jeollanam-do (South Jeolla Province), was indicted on charges of hiring three Thai nationals who did not hold residency status permitting employment, between July and August 2023. The Gwangju Immigration Office, acting on tips about illegal residence, illegal employment and prostitution, deployed nine immigration officers to inspect the business on Aug. 16 that year. While one officer spoke with A and others at the counter, the remaining eight entered the premises and moved to the doors of individual massage rooms. A protested that the officers had entered and searched the business without prior consent, but they continued the inspection and checked the residency and work status of the foreign employees.
At issue was whether it was lawful for immigration officers to enter and inspect the interior of the business without the consent of its manager. Legal arguments also centered on whether evidence obtained in that process, along with evidence collected in follow-up questioning, could be used at trial.
The trial court sentenced A to four months in prison, suspended for two years. It found that the officers had entered in a customary manner a place open to the public during business hours and had not used force.
The appellate court reversed that finding and acquitted A. It held that an administrative inspection under the Immigration Act requires the consent or acquiescence of the manager of the business, and that pressing ahead with the inspection after A explicitly refused amounted to an unlawful exercise of official authority. The court also declined to admit not only the evidence obtained during the raid but also secondary evidence, such as statements given in subsequent questioning based on that material, finding it tainted by the unlawful inspection.
The Supreme Court upheld that ruling. "While parts of the lower court's reasoning were not appropriate, the ruling contained no error that affected the outcome through a misunderstanding of the law on inspection procedures under the Immigration Act, unlawfully obtained evidence or the admissibility of evidence," the court said.