Supreme Court Suspends Sentence for Lawyer Who Took Bribes and Filed False Refugee Applications on Behalf of Clients

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] A lawyer who took bribes and facilitated false refugee applications has been sentenced to a suspended prison term.

On the 11th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Park Sang-ok) confirmed the original sentence of one year imprisonment with a two-year suspension in the appeal trial of lawyer A, who was indicted for violating the Immigration Control Act.

A was tried on charges of receiving introductions from broker B of Chinese nationals wishing to stay in the country from October 2016 to December of the following year and falsely acting on their behalf to file refugee applications.

A submitted refugee applications containing false reasons, such as persecution for religious reasons, for Chinese nationals who entered with short-term business visas, receiving 2 to 3 million won per person, and handled false refugee application procedures a total of 184 times. Once a refugee application is filed, the applicant immediately obtains a humanitarian stay permit visa (G-1), granting the right to stay in the country. Even if refugee status is not recognized, by pursuing litigation or other appeal procedures, one can stay in the country for at least 2 to 3 years and earn money.

However, the first trial court stated, "One must not facilitate or encourage applications for change of stay status by fraudulent means, but A accepted requests to act on behalf of Chinese nationals in all procedures related to false refugee applications," recognizing A's guilt and sentencing him to one year imprisonment with a two-year suspension.

The second trial court also ruled, "Punishing A's facilitation of false refugee recognition applications under the Immigration Control Act does not violate the principle of legality in criminal law," and "Punishing applications for change of stay status by fraudulent means under the Immigration Control Act does not disregard the purpose of the Refugee Act."

The Supreme Court's judgment was the same. The court stated, "There is no illegality in the lower court's interpretation of the establishment of the violation of the former Immigration Control Act for facilitating applications for change of stay status by fraudulent means, nor in its prohibition of analogical interpretation," and dismissed the appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.