Vietnamese construction workers put to trial
– Unfinished atrocities of migrant workers
Kim Ki-don (Secretary General)
About 180 Vietnamese construction workers who were working at the Taeheung Construction Incheon new airline site were in July last year and January this year. Due to their refusal to provide labor for a total of six days, 10 Vietnamese construction workers were investigated by the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency for violating the Act on Punishment of Obstruction and Violence, and were arrested and tried on March 21st. The Incheon District Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against these workers on the same charges, and the Incheon District Court issued a sentence after five trials. At the sentencing hearing held on June 23, the court said to these workers, “foreigners, regardless of nationality, are also subjects of enjoying basic labor rights,” and “because there is no evidence to admit that each of the defendants’ strikes are of power,” the prosecutor He was acquitted of the offense of obstruction of business, which was emphasized as the core of the prosecution, and the seven people charged with coercion and violence that occurred in an individual fight, regardless of strike, were charged with fines and “If sentenced to imprisonment, they are subject to deportation under the Immigration Control Act Most of the sentences were postponed in consideration of this. After the sentencing hearing, seven of these workers were not released from the Incheon Detention Center, but were handed over to the Incheon Immigration Office and detained in the Foreigner Protection Room. Among the workers detained in Incheon Immigration, two workers were sentenced to probation through the first trial, three workers were sentenced to a fine of 2 million won, one worker was sentenced to a fine of 500,000 won and suspended sentence, and one worker was sentenced to suspended sentence. One worker was sentenced to Immigration officials released one worker who received a suspended sentence from the shelter on the same day that they were handed over. However, for two workers who received probation, the decision was made to deport on the next day, the 24th, and the remaining 4 workers who were sentenced to fines and suspended sentences were 29 He was released in the afternoon.
Through the process described above, the current seven workers have been freed from unfair charges and have been freed from detention.
The International Crime Investigation Team of Gyeonggi Provincial 1st Office, which initially investigated
this case, started investigating the case for which the management did not sue or accuse it through a cognitive investigation around August 20 last year. According to intelligence recognized by the police, the strike by Vietnamese workers was caused by the coercion and intimidation of some workers with weapons. The police carried out the investigation despite finding that the information they had obtained during the investigation was unfounded, summoned the management and linked a personal dispute between Vietnamese workers to the strike, leading to a total of 27 workers suspected of leading the strike. was investigated with Among them, seven workers who were involved in a personal quarrel and three workers who were not involved in the quarrel that occurred on the spot were requested for an arrest warrant on charges of leading a strike through violent acts. These 10 workers were arrested by the police between March 21st and April 20th this year. Ten workers who had legal status of residence and a certain place of residence were immediately arrested at the scene where they were working without ever receiving a single subpoena from the police. Eight months after the first strike and two months after the second strike, he was arrested and detained without knowing the English language. Although the substance of the charges against these workers was unclear from the beginning, emergency arrests and arrest warrant applications continued, which would be unimaginable if the suspects were Koreans. For single immigrants who have no family or friends to protest the situation, the behavior of these police officers was clearly racist.In addition, it is clear that the fact that the police carried out such an unreasonable investigation that could not be understood in common sense was for the purpose of accumulating performance in accordance with the ‘foreign crime intensive enforcement period’, which has been in progress for five months from April 5. This is evidenced by the fact that the police were busy promoting their case with brilliant results, such as actively issuing press releases related to this case. It cannot but show the reality of migrant workers who are victimized by racist investigations and performance.
Interpretation system encourages unfair investigation
These workers did not receive proper interpretation support while being investigated by the police. The workers were unanimous in saying that they did not fully understand the charges under investigation, even though they were arrested and questioned by the police. The workers’ claims soon turned out to be true. In the course of the trial, it was revealed in the course of the trial that the police did not properly inform the workers of the contents of the police report while writing it in Korean, and for this reason, some workers sealed the contents of the report that did not apply to them. In addition, although workers had to express their intentions through a police interpreter, no consideration was given to whether the interpreter was providing an accurate interpretation. When investigating suspects from other languages, the police did not take such action, although it is a commonsense procedure to record the interpretation so that it can be reviewed later. In the end, the workers did not understand how their intentions were being communicated to the police, the police investigation was designed as the police claimed, and this poor interpretation system played a role in exaggerating and distorting the charges of these workers in the subsequent trial process. did
Problems in the trial process
Of the 10 workers, except for one who appointed a separate lawyer, 9 were represented by a public defender. The public defender submitted a very poor summary of defense against these workers. The public defender admitted almost all the facts of the prosecution’s charges and submitted a summary of pleadings containing secondary arguments in relation to the facts. The public defender only asked for a short answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ from the workers through an interpreter, and even the interpreter in charge of the lawyer’s interpreter had a poor and disrespectful argument to the point of saying that the workers’ opinions were not reflected at all. . In addition, the court accepted the lawyer’s opinion that it would be better to end the trial as soon as possible, so that two hearings were held, and in reality, only one hearing was conducted before issuing a sentence. If the defense counsel had not been re-appointed and the trial period had not been extended, the workers would have been sentenced without even receiving a proper hearing. It was also full of problems that could be confirmed in the hearing schedule that was held again after that. First of all, the court did not hesitate to commit excessive human rights violations such as handcuffing these 10 workers even in the courtroom. In addition, in the witness interrogation procedure, 10 spectators and 10 defendants were asked to leave, so these 10 workers did not have an opportunity to refute the witness’s testimony against them. Most importantly, it was revealed that the interpretation of the trial interpreter was not smooth. This point was repeatedly pointed out during the trial process through the interpreter of the countermeasures committee, and it was corrected only after the interpreter of the countermeasures committee became involved in the interpretation. In order to prevent such a problem, it is necessary to use multiple interpreters in the trial process to accurately express opinions and confirm the facts, but the court did not take such measures.
Legal Incheon Immigration early behavioral
down, etc. In spite of in this very difficult situation jyeoteum the police investigation and the trial conducted and fortunately those workers guilty for disruption for 10, for other acts of violence probation, sentenced to probation, fined lost. In addition, the court said in the court that the sentence was decided so that other workers, except for the two who were sentenced to probation, would not be deported under the Immigration Control Act. Therefore, these workers were to be released from the detention center on the day of the sentencing trial. However, the Incheon Immigration Department handed over 7 of the 10 workers directly from the detention center to the immigration protection room. The Incheon Detention Center contacted the immigration office with the ‘duty to notify public officials’, and the immigration side arrived at the detention center with a convoy bus. However, the immigration authorities had not decided at all which of these workers to hand over and for what reason, and therefore did not write a ‘protection order’. After arriving at the immigration detention center, the charges were confirmed, and the ’emergency protection order’ was written and handed over to these workers. The ‘Emergency Protection Order’ confirmed by the Countermeasures Committee through a protest was poorly written, such as the wrong date of protection, or no seal of confirmation by the public official in charge. Afterwards, the immigration officials tried to turn it over with laughter, saying that their illegal behavior was merely a negligence in their work.
The task force went to immigration and demanded the immediate release of these workers. Because the court’s decision allowed these workers freedom of release. However, the Immigration Department said that there was no problem because they were able to conduct examinations under the Immigration Control Act regardless of the court decision. The task force reminded the Immigration Office that it is a common sense procedure for workers who have been decided to be released to be reviewed by issuing a request for attendance while they are released. However, since the police and the court judged that foreigners who were under arrest were likely to run away, the immigration authorities responded that the examination was conducted while detained. He said that the review process does not reflect the court’s judgment, but is decided through document review on the quality of the crime. What was confirmed through this was the fact that in most cases of detained foreigners, they were handed over to immigration, and more than 90% of them were forcibly evicted. In addition, after the trial of the first trial, even before the appeal was decided, the deportation was decided according to the result of the trial of the first trial. This is an irrational administrative execution that goes against the principle of presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, the immigration side admitted that it had been carrying out such extra-legal administrative executions in the meantime, talking about due process. Although five people were released through strong protests by the Countermeasures Committee, one person who was later handed over to immigration due to a fine in another case at the current detention center was forcibly deported.
This case was not only the first case in which a migrant worker was prosecuted and tried for a strike, but in the process, the racist practices against migrants in our society, the anti-human rights administrative system, and extra-legal immigration administrative behavior were clearly exposed. . It is the reality of our society that migrant workers can apply such systematic and systematic oppression because they assert their labor rights. If these problems are not addressed, the guarantee of the human rights and labor rights of migrant workers will become more and more difficult.