The head of an anti-immigration organization, who faced charges of unlawfully detaining and arresting foreigners under the guise of combating illegal residency, received a prison sentence in the second trial.
The Daejeon District Court’s Criminal Division 2-1 (Presiding Judge Park Jun-beom) rejected the appeal filed by A, who faced charges under the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts (joint arrest) and the Information and Communications Network Act (defamation), and confirmed the initial sentence of six months in prison, according to the court’s statement on the 3rd.
A, representing an anti-immigration organization that promotes the “removal of undocumented foreign workers and safeguarding employment opportunities for regular citizens,” was sent to trial for allegedly detaining a foreigner for about 15 minutes along with two other group members on a road in Buyeo County, South Chungcheong Province, in February 2024, stating, “We were informed that this individual is an illegal resident. We intend to file a report with the police.”
A was also accused of revealing the foreigner’s identity and nationality by posting a video of the incident on YouTube and other social media platforms (SNS).
A claimed that his actions were reasonable because he was arresting a clear offender and did not amount to defamation since it was in the public’s interest. Nevertheless, the court dismissed this argument.
Previously, the initial court decided, “Even though the victim was eventually identified as an unauthorized resident, there were no clear indicators at the time of the arrest that suggested the victim was an unauthorized resident. Hence, it is challenging to view the arrest as fulfilling the criteria for capturing a person caught in the act due to the absence of ‘clear evidence of the offender or the crime.’”
It stated, “While the defendant asserts that the action was intended to prevent harm to citizens resulting from illegal immigrants, based on the subtitles in the YouTube video, it is concluded that the defendant’s intention was to achieve political advantages by extensively publicizing the arrest of the foreigner.”
With respect to the defamation claim, the court remarked, “The fact that the victim was an unauthorized resident is not an objectively public or socially relevant matter, and the degree of harm to the victim’s reputation is considerable,” thereby dismissing A’s argument.
The second trial court reached the same conclusion. It noted, “Prior to this incident, the defendant was informed by the police that detaining and arresting foreigners is against the law,” and decided, “The initial verdict is completely valid, therefore the defendant’s appeal is rejected.”
jasdooit 
Leave a comment