"To Prevent Illegal Stay"... University Korean Language Institute Director Punished for Manipulating International Student Attendance Rates

Suspended Sentence on Appeal
"Actions Taken for School's Benefit, Not for Students"

The director of a university Korean language institute, accused of manipulating the attendance rates of foreign students to help them extend their stay in Korea, received a suspended prison sentence on appeal, following the same outcome as the first trial.

According to a report by Yonhap News on August 3, the Criminal Division 1 of the Chuncheon District Court (Presiding Judge Shim Hyungeun) sentenced Mr. A (63), who was indicted on charges of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means and violation of the Immigration Control Act, to 10 months in prison with a two-year suspension, the same as the original ruling.

Mr. A, who worked as both a professor and director of the Korean language institute at a university in Gangwon Province, falsely recorded the attendance rate of foreign student B as 74.5% on an attendance certificate in June 2022, when the actual rate was 22%. He was put on trial for instructing a staff member responsible for visa extension documents at the Korean language institute to use this falsified certificate to apply for an extension of B's stay at the immigration office. From that time until September of the following year, over a period of one year and three months, Mr. A falsified attendance rates on 182 occasions using the same method, thereby obstructing the execution of duties related to the approval of foreign nationals' stay status changes.

Chuncheon District Court Building Exterior

The Wonju Branch of the Chuncheon District Court, which presided over the first trial, stated, "The defendant disrupted the order of foreign nationals' stay and interfered with immigration administration," and added, "Given the duration of the crime and the number of foreign nationals involved, the scale of the crime cannot be considered small." The court handed down a suspended prison sentence. Mr. A, dissatisfied with the verdict, argued, "I supplemented the attendance record as the head of the educational institution, based on a comprehensive consideration of each student's individual and objective circumstances, exercising my legitimate authority and discretion." He also claimed, "I believed that the school should embrace absent students to prevent them from becoming illegal residents."

However, the appellate court rejected Mr. A's arguments, stating, "Manipulating attendance rates made it impossible to properly review the legitimate stay qualifications as stipulated by the Immigration Control Act, which constitutes an illegal act."

The court noted that Mr. A testified that if foreign students became illegal residents, the school would be prohibited from recruiting international students for one year; that at the time, a large number of international students were not attending classes; and that the school would suffer losses if it could no longer recruit international students. Based on these factors, the court determined that Mr. A's primary motive was not consideration for the students' circumstances but rather the benefit of the school. Regarding Mr. A's claim that the sentence was excessively harsh, the court stated, "Since the original verdict, there have been no new circumstances or changes significant enough to warrant a different sentence," and upheld the original ruling.