KB News Desk
South Korea can deny entry to a foreign businessperson on public safety grounds despite the economic benefits they may bring, a court has ruled.
The Seoul Administrative Court upheld immigration authorities’ refusal to allow a Chinese business executive to enter the country, rejecting a lawsuit seeking to overturn the decision, according to legal sources Monday.
The executive chairs a company pursuing a development project at a tourism complex on Jeju Island.
The company had purchased land on the island worth 33.8 billion won ($23.6 million) and was seeking approval to build accommodation and leisure facilities.
Eight years earlier, however, Korean prosecutors had suspended the executive’s indictment over an alleged violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes.
Citing the case, the head of the immigration office at Incheon Airport denied the executive authorization under the Korea Electronic Travel Authorization system.
A suspension of indictment is a prosecutorial decision not to bring charges despite finding sufficient grounds to suspect an offense, taking into account factors such as the circumstances of the case, the suspect’s remorse and whether a settlement was reached. It does not amount to a criminal conviction.
Article 11 of Korea’s Immigration Act allows immigration authorities to deny entry to people deemed likely to threaten public safety.
The executive argued that eight years had passed since the prosecutorial decision and that they were unlikely to commit a similar offense because of their advanced age.
They also claimed that the entry denial could cause economic losses by disrupting efforts to attract tourists and proceed with the Jeju investment project.
The court, however, sided with immigration authorities.
It said prosecutors had concluded that the executive used his position of authority to sexually molest a Korean woman in his employ before suspending the indictment.
“The offense undermined public safety and standards of sexual morality, and its culpability cannot be regarded as insignificant,” the court said.
It added that allowing a foreign national who had engaged in unlawful conduct to enter and remain in the country because of their position as a corporate chair or their potential economic contribution could undermine the state’s ability to safeguard public safety and uphold the rule of law.
The court also found that the passage of eight years alone was not enough to conclude that the risk posed by the executive had disappeared, noting that they continued to deny the underlying conduct.
