The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal for immigration officials to question individuals at a massage parlor suspected of harboring undocumented foreign workers despite the explicit refusal of the facility's manager.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Um Sang-pil) finalized the lower court's ruling last month, which acquitted the massage parlor owner, identified as A, by deeming the evidence unlawfully collected.

Owner A was indicted the following year on charges of employing three Thai nationals without legal residence status for work while operating a massage parlor in Mokpo, South Jeolla Province, between July and August 2023.

The Gwangju Immigration and Foreigner Office deployed nine officials to crack down on the establishment in August 2023 after receiving a tip regarding illegal stays, illegal employment, and prostitution.

While one immigration official spoke with A and others at the counter, the remaining eight entered and moved in front of the doors of each massage room.

A immediately protested, asking, "Are you just walking in and searching like this without asking for consent or understanding?" However, the officials continued to knock on the doors, demand that the foreigners come out, and verify their residency and employment qualifications.

Subsequently, the Gwangju Immigration and Foreigner Office successively summoned and questioned A and the foreign employees, and based on this, filed a complaint against A with investigative authorities.

The core issues were whether this crackdown process was illegal and whether the evidence collected through the crackdown and statements from the summons investigations possessed admissibility as evidence.

The first instance court judged that the crackdown process was not illegal, noting that the lobby of the massage parlor was a place accessible to the general public, and that the officials did not enter the rooms directly but instead knocked to have only the foreigners come out.

It also held that even if it were illegal, the statements made during the subsequent independently conducted summons investigations could be used as evidence.

Based on the evidence secured in this manner, the first instance court found A guilty and sentenced him to four months in prison with a two-year suspension of execution.

However, the second instance court accepted A's claim that the immigration officials conducted an illegal investigation and sentenced him to acquittal.

The second instance court cited legal precedent stating, "In order for immigration officials and others to enter a third party's residence or a business establishment where general public access is not permitted under Article 81, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act and question foreigners, they must obtain the prior consent of the homeowner or manager."

Furthermore, it ruled that even if the establishment was a place where free access by the general public was permitted, consent or understanding was necessary for administrative investigations. It judged that entering, guarding the doors, and making the foreigners come out despite A's clear refusal amounted to a de facto search, constituting "illegal official execution" carried out without a warrant.

The second instance court also ruled that not only the evidence collected during the crackdown but also secondary evidence such as the complaint, crackdown reports, and foreigner interrogation protocols "were collected in the process of investigations stemming from the crackdown act, meaning the illegality was not severed," thus denying their admissibility as evidence.

Although the prosecution appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating, "There are no errors in the lower court's judgment that affected the verdict by misunderstanding legal principles regarding investigation procedures under the Immigration Act, unlawfully collected evidence, and evidentiary admissibility."

(Photo: Provided by Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)