A court has ruled that immigration authorities were justified in barring a foreign businessman from entering South Korea after he received a deferred prosecution for a sex crime, finding that public safety must take precedence over economic contribution when deciding whether to admit foreign nationals.
The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 7, presided over by Judge Kang Woo-chan, recently ruled against the plaintiff, identified only as A, in a lawsuit he filed seeking to overturn an entry denial issued by the head of the Incheon Airport Immigration and Foreigners Office.
A, a Chinese national who obtained Australian citizenship in 2025, chairs a corporation developing a tourism complex on Jeju Island. He had purchased land in the Jeju area for about 33.8 billion won ($23.6 million) and was pursuing permits to build lodging and resort facilities as part of a large-scale investment project in South Korea.
A had previously received a deferred prosecution in South Korea under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes — specifically for groping a subordinate by abusing his position of authority. Immigration authorities subsequently denied him both entry and a Korea Electronic Travel Authorization. Under Article 11 of the Immigration Act, authorities may bar entry to anyone deemed likely to pose a threat to public health and safety.
A deferred prosecution means prosecutors acknowledge that a crime was committed but choose not to indict, taking into account factors such as the circumstances of the offense, whether the suspect showed remorse, and whether a settlement was reached.
A filed the administrative lawsuit arguing that eight years had passed since the deferred prosecution and that, given his age, the risk of reoffending was low. He also contended that barring his entry would cause significant economic losses to Jeju's tourism industry and his investment project.
The court rejected his arguments.
The court found that A "was given a deferred prosecution after it was established that he groped a South Korean woman in his employ by abusing his authority," adding that the offense "carries considerable moral culpability as a crime that undermines public safety and sound sexual mores."
The court also said that allowing a foreign national who had committed an unlawful act to enter and remain in the country on the grounds of his status as a corporate head or his economic contributions "risks weakening the function of maintaining public safety and the rule of law."
The court further found that A continued to deny the offense, making it difficult to conclude that the risk had dissipated simply because eight years had passed since the deferred prosecution.
The court dismissed all of A's claims, noting that he could still seek entry through other channels — including applying for a special exemption from the entry restriction through an overseas diplomatic mission.
betterj@heraldcorp.com
