Korea Airports Corporation Employee Who Allowed Dozens of Passengers to Board Despite Detector Being Off Receives Suspended Sentence

Original Verdict Overturned, 3 Million Won Fine Suspended
"It Was Likely Difficult to Determine the Scope of Duties"

An employee of Korea Airports Corporation, who had received a fine in the first trial for neglecting security screening of airline passengers due to a malfunctioning metal detector, was granted leniency on appeal.

On June 17, the Jeonju District Court Criminal Division 2 (Presiding Judge Kim Dohyeong) overturned the original verdict that had imposed a fine of 5 million won on Mr. A (44), who was indicted for violating the Aviation Security Act, and instead suspended the imposition of a 3 million won fine.

Asia Economy DB

A suspended sentence is a ruling in which the imposition of a penalty for a relatively minor crime is delayed for a certain period, and if two years pass from the date of suspension, the offender is effectively exempt from punishment. This case originated from a malfunction of a metal detector at Gunsan Airport around 5:00 p.m. on July 26, 2022.

At the time, Mr. A, who was the airport security screening supervisor, allowed 29 passengers to board a flight to Jeju even though the detector was turned off and neither baggage nor body searches were properly conducted. Employees of a subsidiary company, contracted by the corporation to handle security screening, recommended a "re-screening" of passengers who had not passed through the detector. However, Mr. A did not accept this recommendation.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport uncovered these facts during a special audit the following year and requested a police investigation. The first trial court acknowledged Mr. A's negligence and imposed a fine, but Mr. A appealed, claiming that "the actual security screening was performed by subsidiary employees."

The appellate court stated, "Given the nature of the work performed at the time, the defendant, as supervisor, should have ensured that screening personnel took appropriate measures after recognizing the malfunction of the security equipment. However, the defendant not only ignored the screening staff's recommendations but also took no action, so it is difficult to consider the original court's finding of negligence to be unlawful."

The court added, "However, the defendant had received several official notices from the corporation instructing him to refrain from directly ordering subsidiary employees, so it is likely that he found it difficult to clearly determine the scope of his supervisory duties. In addition, no actual aviation security incident occurred as a result of this case, and the defendant has already received severe disciplinary action from the corporation. Taking these factors into account, the sentence was determined."