Why it doesn't end with just one airgun case
When you first read the article, it's easy to feel this way: 'This is such a horrifying assault case.' And that's true—first of all, it is a criminal case. But if you look a little deeper, this is not a story that ends with a single assault. Because the victim is a migrant worker, and moreover was an undocumented resident whose visa had expired, everything is intertwined as one bundle: whether the victim can continue receiving treatment, whether reporting it could lead to deportation, and whether they can get out of the company.
So the core of this case does not stop at simply saying, 'there was a bad employer.' The police investigate assault and injury, the Ministry of Employment and Labor examines workplace harassment, wage arrears, and industrial safety violations, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service determines whether it qualifies as an industrial accident, and the Ministry of Justice reviews whether stable residency can be guaranteed. That is exactly why, even though it is a single case, multiple agencies move at the same time.
And an even more uncomfortable question remains. Why do these cases keep repeating with only the industry changed? Whether it's a manufacturing plant, agriculture and livestock, or a fish farm, the names differ but the words attached afterward are similar, aren't they? Assault, wage arrears, poor housing, interference with medical treatment, pressure to return home. To understand this, you have to look together at Korea's Employment Permit System (E-9, a system that allows non-professional foreign workers to work in Korea for a certain period) and the structure of dependency within it.
Criminal investigation: The police handle assault and injury.
Labor rights investigation: The Ministry of Labor handles harassment, wage arrears, and safety issues.
Compensation and treatment: If it is related to work, the industrial accident compensation process opens.
Residency stability: Even for an undocumented resident, victim protection may take effect first.
What agencies move in Korea when harm occurs?
It is one case, but there is not just one procedure. Punishment, labor inspection, compensation, and residency support all operate at the same time.
Step 1: Bring the case out into the open through a 112 report or a complaint
For urgent dangers like assault or injury, reporting to the police comes first. For wage arrears or harassment, routes such as filing a complaint with the labor office, counseling through 1350, and the 1345 Foreign Resident Contact Center are also available. What matters is 'getting connected somewhere first.'
Step 2: The police look at the crime, while the Ministry of Labor looks at labor law violations
The same scene is viewed differently by the two agencies. The police examine criminal responsibility—who assaulted whom and how—while the Ministry of Labor examines the full range of labor law issues, such as violations of the prohibition on violence, workplace harassment, wage arrears, long working hours, and occupational safety and health violations.
Step 3: If the reason for the injury is connected to work, the industrial accident process opens
The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service examines whether 'this is an occupational accident.' It is not enough that the person was simply injured at the company; the key is how closely the cause of the assault is connected to the work. If recognized, it can lead to medical expenses and workers' compensation benefits.
Step 4: Residency issues are handled separately by the Ministry of Justice
For migrant workers, this is where the most anxious question arises: 'If I report it, won't I be the one expelled first?' In situations like this, the Ministry of Justice may prioritize victim protection through exemption from the duty to report, extension of the period of stay, and review of temporary stay status such as G-1.
Step 5: Actual recovery is possible only when treatment, shelter, and interpretation are all connected
Systems are useless if they exist only on paper. Protection becomes real only when there are materials such as counseling records, interpretation, a medical certificate, a case number, and confirmation of shelter admission. That is why if the initial response is delayed, the victim can easily become isolated again.
The police, the Ministry of Labor, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and the Ministry of Justice: their roles differ like this
| Institution | What they look at | Outcome for the victim |
|---|---|---|
| Police | **Criminal offenses** such as assault, injury, and threats | Investigation of the perpetrator, booking, personal protection, linkage to medical expense support |
| Ministry of Employment and Labor | Wage theft, prohibition of violence, **workplace harassment** (repeated harassment by abusing a superior position at work), occupational safety and health violations | Labor inspection, corrective orders, fines, booking, referral to prosecutors |
| Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service | Whether it qualifies as a work-related injury | Approval of workers' compensation, medical expenses, medical care benefits, proceeding with treatment procedures |
| Ministry of Justice · 1345 | Stay-related insecurity, victim protection, report intake and linkage | Review of exemption from the duty to notify immigration authorities, stabilization of stay such as G-1, linkage to counseling and shelters |
Even just the revealed cases of harassment are increasing rapidly
This is already the number captured through official reports alone. There are continued claims that the actual harm could be much greater.
If an undocumented resident reports harm, will they be deported immediately?
A lot of people think this way. They assume that if an undocumented resident goes to a police station or government office, they will be handed over to immigration right away, and then deportation will follow. But the actual system is not that simple. Under Korean law, there is a mechanism that allows public officials to be exempt from the duty to notify immigration authorities when victim relief must come first. Because if deportation came first the moment someone reported, no one would report violence or exploitation.
In practice, for foreign victims of crime, G-1-type stay status may be considered. Simply put, it is like a safety device that says, 'Resolving this case and recovery come first for now, so let's not cut off their stay immediately.' However, this is not granted automatically, and the more objective evidence there is—such as a case number, complaint filing receipt, medical certificate, or shelter admission confirmation—the more likely it is that actual protection will work.
This is the important part. Having a system in place and being able to access it on the ground without fear are completely different issues. From the perspective of an undocumented resident, the fear of 'What if the exception is not recognized?' is overwhelming. So what matters for the protection system is not just the legal text, but how well interpretation, proxy reporting, and counseling channels are connected, because that completely changes how protection is experienced.
Even an undocumented resident can be eligible for protection as a victim of crime.
It is not automatic deportation immediately upon reporting; the logic of victim relief first can apply.
However, it is not automatically guaranteed, so securing case-related evidence is extremely important.
The common belief of 'immediate forced departure' is different from the actual system
| Category | Common belief | Actual system and reality |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting | If you go to the police, you will be taken away immediately | If victim relief must come first, **exemption from the duty to notify** is possible |
| Stay | If you are undocumented, stabilizing your stay is impossible under any circumstances | Victims of crime may be considered for **temporary stay status such as G-1** |
| Proof | You are protected if you just say it happened | Actual protection becomes stronger when there are materials such as a case number, medical certificate, filing receipt, or shelter confirmation |
| Limits | Since there are exceptions, there is no need to worry | It is not automatically guaranteed and is subject to individual review, so the fear of reporting remains high |
Can assault during work also qualify as a work-related injury?
Many people think of workers' compensation only as accidents like getting caught in machinery or falling, but assault related to work can also qualify as a work-related injury. The key point is not the location, but the cause. Being hit inside a factory does not automatically make it a work-related injury, but on the other hand, if it happened in the context of work—such as performing duties, giving instructions, workplace conflict, or dealing with customers—rather than because of a personal grudge, it can be recognized as a work-related injury.
This does not change just because someone is a migrant worker. More precisely, a person is not automatically excluded from workers' compensation coverage simply because they are a foreign national or because they are undocumented. In fact, there have been cases in which undocumented migrant workers were approved for workers' compensation and proceeded with treatment after it was recognized that they were injured while providing labor and that the injury was work-related.
That is why a workers' compensation claim is involved in the Hwaseong case as well. A police investigation is a procedure to punish the perpetrator, while workers' compensation is a procedure that enables the victim to continue receiving treatment. They are not competing with each other; it is more accurate to see them as different axes of the same case.
It does not look only at whether the person was injured inside the company, but at why they were injured.
If it is connected to conflict, instructions, or control in the course of performing work, the likelihood of it being recognized as an industrial accident increases.
Even if someone is an undocumented resident, treatment support may be available if actual work and a work-related injury are recognized.
Why are some assaults recognized as industrial accidents, while others are difficult to recognize?
| Category | Likelihood of recognition as an industrial accident | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Assault that occurred during the process of work instructions | High | Because the cause of the conflict is directly connected to performing work |
| Assault suffered while responding to customers or complainants | High | Because it is easy to view it as a case where a risk inherent in the job has materialized |
| Personal grudges or private disputes between coworkers | Low | Because if the main cause is a private relationship outside work, it is difficult to view it as a work-related injury |
| Private-life disputes such as dating or money problems | Low | Because even if it happened at the workplace, the connection to work is weak |
How did the migrant labor system get to this point?
The problems we see today did not appear overnight. Even as the system changed, some structures remained the same.
1993–2003: The shadow of the industrial trainee system
At first, Korea accepted foreigners not as formal workers but under the name of trainees. It was called training, but in reality they worked on-site, which created major blind spots in labor law protection and serious human rights violations.
2004: Introduction of the Employment Permit System
To fix this problem, the Employment Permit System(EPS), which legally recognizes foreigners as workers, was introduced. This was clearly progress. At the very least, it created a language of rights that trainees did not have.
After 2011: Repeated human rights warnings and partial improvements
The National Human Rights Commission and international organizations kept pointing out the same issue: restrictions on changing workplaces were so strong that dependence on employers increased. There were some gradual adjustments to housing issues and mobility procedures, but the framework itself did not change much.
2024–2026: 20-year review and discussions on liberalization
As the Employment Permit System reached its 20th year, the same question returned: 'If legal status has improved, why do assault and exploitation keep repeating?' Recently, discussions about allowing freer workplace changes have entered the policy arena, but old problems are still repeating in the field.
The industrial trainee system and the Employment Permit System: what changed, and what remained?
| Item | Industrial Trainee System | Employment Permit System(E-9) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal status | Trainee-centered | Recognized as **workers** |
| Labor law protection | Very weak | Expanded application in principle |
| Sending structure | Controversy over corruption and broker problems | Strengthened government-to-government management |
| Freedom to change workplaces | Limited | Still possible only within statutory grounds and limits on the number of times |
| Structural vulnerability | Large blind spots in rights protection | Rights increased, but the problem of **employer dependence** remains |
Why does pressure to return home come before treatment?
This is the part that weighs most heavily on my mind. From the outside, it may seem easy to think, 'If you're sick, just go to the hospital, and if the company is the problem, just quit.' But for E-9 migrant workers, it is not that simple. A single issue of changing jobs can shake their visa, housing, wage settlement, next job, and residence stability all at once.
For example, when an employer interferes with treatment or urges someone to return home, that is not just a casual remark. It can sound like pressure saying, 'If you try to hold out here, you may not be able to stay in Korea much longer.' If the housing is company-owned, the company controls bank account management or wage settlement information, and workplace changes are restricted, then even choices that are legally available to workers become impossible to choose in reality.
This structure is not exactly the same as systems like the Gulf countries' kafala, where the employer almost entirely controls a worker's stay. However, internationally, Korea is also assessed as an employer-tied regime, that is, a system in which residence and labor are strongly tied to the employer. That is why, even in the Hwaseong case, the focus of the government response shifted beyond simply supporting medical expenses to the issue of allowing the victim to remain in the country while receiving treatment. To receive treatment, the person first has to be able to stay in Korea.
If you leave your job, your visa and income may become unstable.
If housing and daily-life information are tied to the company, the cost of escape becomes high.
As a result, a large gap emerges between legal rights and the actual ability to exercise them.
What happens when visas, housing, and wages are tied together in one hand
| Point of control | Who can easily hold it | Effect on the worker |
|---|---|---|
| Visa and workplace change | Employer/system | The moment they leave the company, anxiety over their residence status grows, making them hesitate to raise problems |
| Housing | Employer or broker | They may lose even their place to stay as soon as they quit, making escape difficult |
| Wage settlement | Employer | If they raise issues about unpaid wages or deductions, their living expenses may be cut off immediately |
| Reemployment/recommendation information | Employer/intermediate manager | Even the possibility of the next job is controlled, increasing pressure to comply |
So how should we view this case?
The Hwaseong air gun case is clearly one that requires strict punishment for the individual act of violence. But if it ends there, the likelihood of another case emerging grows. That is because at the root of similar cases there is always the same set of questions: why the victim could not immediately escape, why pressure to return home works more effectively than treatment, and why reporting is delayed.
Ultimately, this case is also one that asks how Korean society has come to rely on migrant workers. Korea's manufacturing, agriculture and livestock industries, and fisheries already depend heavily on migrant labor, yet the system is still largely designed to 'make them work, but not let them stay easily.' In this structure, whether it is assault or wage theft, an environment in which victims have difficulty resisting is likely to be repeated.
So there are really two important things. One is ensuring that in this case, the victim receives sufficient treatment and protection while maintaining their residence status; the other is addressing structural issues such as restrictions on workplace changes, access to counseling, separation of housing, and guidance on industrial accident compensation and labor rights even after public attention to the case dies down. Only then will we hear a little less of the phrase 'another similar case.'
Can repetition be prevented by punishing only the perpetrator?
Is there a structure in which victims do not lose their livelihood and residence status even if they report?
Is Korea's migrant labor system closer to 'subordination' than to 'protection'?