If you’re a foreign physical therapist, occupational therapist, or nurse working in Korea, this is something you should be aware of.
Even routine medical care can sometimes be misunderstood and lead to criminal complaints. When those allegations involve child abuse, the consequences go far beyond fines or prison time. Under Korean law, a conviction may also result in a ban on working at child-related institutions. For healthcare professionals, that often means the end of their career.
For foreign professionals, the risk is even greater. Your visa is typically tied to your job, so losing the ability to work can directly affect your right to stay in Korea.
Table of Contents
Where Medical Treatment Can Be Misinterpreted
Medical care often involves physical contact—restraining a patient, conducting examinations, giving injections, or drawing blood. Depending on how a situation unfolds, these actions inherently carry the risk of being misinterpreted as abuse.
That’s why it’s essential to clearly establish medical necessity, obtain guardian consent, explain procedures thoroughly, and keep accurate records.
Even when a complaint is based on a misunderstanding, once it’s reported, the situation can escalate quickly—into a police investigation, media attention, or formal complaints. For foreign professionals, language barriers can make things worse, as incomplete explanations often lead to bigger misunderstandings.
A Case That Nearly Ended a Career
Our client, a physical therapist, suddenly found himself under investigation for child abuse.
In January 2022, while working in a hospital’s rehabilitation department, the client was treating a six-year-old child with developmental disabilities. The child resisted treatment, tried to pull away, and even attempted to poke the therapist’s eyes.
In the process of continuing the session, the client struck the child’s hands and buttocks more forcefully than necessary. The entire incident was recorded on CCTV. After reviewing the footage, the child’s parents filed a criminal complaint.
A conviction in a case like this typically leads to a ban on working in child-related institutions. This effectively means that a physical therapist can no longer work in a hospital. For someone who has spent years building a career, that outcome is essentially the same as losing it entirely.
Reframing the Approach
The client’s initial instinct was to deny the allegations—to argue that everything shown on CCTV fell within the scope of standard medical procedures inherent to physical therapy.
As we have noted in our other cases, SLG attorneys are particularly effective at securing favorable outcomes by maintaining a constructive and strategic relationship with investigative authorities.
See also: A case where SLG secured a non-prosecution decision for a foreign national caught in the act, by working constructively with investigators.
In this case, early communication with the investigator led to a shift in perspective. The investigator came to understand the client’s situation more sympathetically and indicated that acknowledging the conduct and seeking leniency could result in a disposition close to non-prosecution.
That said, this is where caution is essential. Investigators are not legal professionals, and relying on such suggestions without proper legal guidance can be risky. We have seen cases where individuals acted on similar advice and ultimately placed themselves in a worse position.
In this matter, however, legal counsel was involved from the outset. This allowed us to assess the situation immediately and adjust the strategy—acknowledging the conduct shown on CCTV while fully presenting the context and circumstances surrounding the incident.
During discussions with the investigator, it became clear that the circumstances of the case were being understood with some level of sympathy. There was an indication that acknowledging the conduct and seeking leniency could lead to a more favorable outcome.
How the Defense Was Built
Instead of allowing the case to be reduced to “a therapist who hit a child,” the defense focused on three key points.
First, we explained the reality of the clinical setting. Physical therapy often involves applying physical force. The client’s actions were not driven by intent to harm, but by an effort to carry out necessary treatment within limited time. We supported this with relevant case law emphasizing the need for caution when criminalizing conduct in a medical context.
Second, we highlighted the limited and situational nature of the conduct. The force used was not arbitrary—it arose during an extreme case of non-cooperation and was used as a supplementary measure to continue treatment. It was also a single, isolated incident.
Third, we addressed the broader public interest. There is a serious shortage of rehabilitation services for children with disabilities in Korea. We asked the court to consider whether permanently removing a qualified therapist from the field would truly serve those children. Statements from colleagues were submitted to support the client’s professionalism and character.
No Settlement—But Still an Exemption
Significant efforts were made to reach a settlement, including meeting the child’s father in person. However, the family requested a formal apology and compensation from the hospital itself, not just the individual therapist. That was beyond the client’s control, and no agreement was reached.
In child abuse cases, lack of settlement usually weighs heavily against the defendant. Still, we made it clear that the absence of an agreement was not due to any lack of effort or sincerity.
The result: a fine of 5,000,000 KRW, with no employment restriction.
The prosecution appealed, arguing the sentence was too lenient, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision. The client was deeply relieved to have retained the ability to continue working and expressed sincere gratitude for the outcome.
Critical Risks Foreign Medical Professionals Must Understand
For Korean nationals, an employment restriction is a career issue. For foreign professionals, it’s both a career and immigration issue.
Under Article 46 of the Immigration Act, a criminal conviction can lead to deportation. Once a case is finalized, it is reported to immigration authorities. Depending on the situation, you may face detention, a departure order, or other administrative measures.
In this case, the 5,000,000 KRW fine was effectively the best possible outcome for a Korean professional. For a foreign national, however, a fine at that level may be enough to trigger immigration proceedings.
That means even if the criminal case ends relatively well, you could still be forced to leave Korea.
Why Both Criminal and Immigration Strategies Matter
Focusing only on the criminal case is not enough.
If immigration risks are not addressed at the same time, a favorable court outcome may still lead to removal from the country.
SLG has handled cases where a foreign client admitted to a sexual offense, received a fine of 4,000,000 KRW, and was subsequently issued a departure order. (For sexual offenses, even the lowest possible punishment may trigger deportation measures, because the Korean law stipulates that a foreigner can be deported solely on the grounds that they are “guilty” of a sex crime, regardless of the severity of the punishment.)
Despite this, the client ultimately prevailed in administrative litigation and was able to remain in Korea.
See more: A successful case overturning a departure order for a foreign national through administrative litigation.
Being classified as “subject to deportation” does not legally mean immediate removal. However, in practice, the likelihood of deportation is extremely high—to the point that the distinction is often negligible.
A departure order is not issued automatically in every case. Authorities will consider factors such as the nature of the offense, prior record, visa status, ties to Korea, and whether a settlement was reached with the victim. Even so, deportation is the outcome in a significant majority of cases.
Ultimately, the decision rests on the discretion of the immigration authorities.
This is why it is critical to prepare both the criminal defense and the immigration response from the very beginning. Focusing on only one side can lead to a situation where a relatively favorable criminal outcome still results in being forced to leave Korea.
Work with experienced professionals from the outset to build a strong, well-grounded defense.