Factory owner sentenced to 3 years for air gun assault on migrant worker

The factory owner committed a violent assault that caused a migrant worker severe internal injuries. The case matters because the court found the conduct was not a harmless workplace joke, but a serious crime combined with labor-law violations.

The owner held the Thai worker by the waist and inserted an industrial air-gun nozzle into his anus. He continued spraying for seven or eight seconds even after the worker said it hurt. The worker suffered a rectal perforation exceeding 10 centimeters and needed surgery.

Judge Koo Na-young sentenced the owner, identified as A, to three years in prison. The court also criticized his lack of remorse, reluctance to arrange treatment, and deduction of medical costs from the worker’s wages. The ruling rejected his claim that he had only played a prank. It also dismissed an intimidation case against his wife because the worker did not want her punished.

An industrial air gun is a tool that releases compressed air through a narrow nozzle. Factories commonly use such equipment for tasks such as cleaning surfaces or removing dust and debris. It is designed for industrial work, not contact with a person’s body.

High-pressure air can cause severe injury because concentrated force enters a small area. If the nozzle is pressed against or inserted into the body, the air can tear delicate internal tissue. The article reports that the owner used the tool on a Thai worker’s anal area for seven or eight seconds, despite the worker saying he was in pain.

The result was a traumatic rectal perforation exceeding 10 centimeters. The worker required surgery. The court treated the act as aggravated bodily injury, rejecting the owner’s claim that it was merely a prank. The case shows why industrial equipment can become extremely dangerous when misused.

The worker’s injuries were severe because the air blast damaged internal tissue rather than causing only a surface wound. The court described a traumatic rectal perforation exceeding 10 centimeters. That scale made the incident a medical emergency and supported the aggravated-injury conviction.

After the assault, the worker needed immediate surgery. The hospital that first treated him told the owner that he should go to a higher-level hospital for urgent care. The owner was accused of urging the worker to leave the country instead, even though further treatment was necessary.

The article does not identify the exact surgical procedure or provide a recovery timeline. It does establish that surgery took place and that the worker’s injuries were linked to the air-gun assault. The court also criticized the owner for resisting treatment and deducting related medical expenses from the worker’s wages. Those actions increased the seriousness of the case.

The court found that the owner’s conduct went beyond an assault causing injury. Judge Koo Na-young convicted him of aggravated bodily injury and violations of the Labor Standards Act. Together, these findings recognized both the physical violence and the employer’s workplace-related misconduct.

The injury charge was based on the owner’s use of an industrial air gun against the worker. The labor-law findings were part of the same prosecution, which also involved the owner’s handling of medical care and wages. The court noted that he resisted providing treatment and deducted injury-related medical expenses from the worker’s pay.

The article does not identify the exact Labor Standards Act provisions or explain each violation separately. It does state that the owner received three years in prison. Prosecutors had sought seven years. The court’s decision therefore imposed a substantial criminal penalty while rejecting the defense argument that the conduct was only a joke.

The worker’s undocumented immigration status mattered because the owner allegedly presented it as a threat. According to the article, he referred to police and called the worker an illegal immigrant, suggesting that reporting could lead to trouble. Such threats can create fear of authorities and discourage a vulnerable worker from seeking help.

The alleged threat was tied to medical care. Although the worker needed emergency surgery, the owner allegedly urged him to leave the country that night and return home. The court said this appeared to be an attempt to conceal the incident. The owner also resisted providing treatment and deducted medical costs from the worker’s wages.

The article does not state whether the worker actually lacked access to all legal remedies or medical services. It does show that immigration status formed part of the alleged intimidation and the court’s criticism. The intimidation case against the owner’s wife was dismissed because the worker did not want her punished.

The court rejected the prank defense because the evidence showed purposeful conduct and serious harm. A joke does not erase responsibility when someone uses dangerous equipment against another person, especially after the person expresses pain. The court examined both the worker’s testimony and medical records.

The owner’s lawyers admitted that he fired the air gun about three times but denied inserting the nozzle or spraying for seven seconds. The court found that the owner held the worker by the waist, inserted the nozzle, and sprayed for seven or eight seconds. The worker resisted and said it hurt, but the owner did not stop.

The resulting traumatic rectal perforation exceeded 10 centimeters and required surgery. The court also considered the owner’s later conduct, including reluctance to provide treatment, urging the worker to leave the country, and deducting medical expenses from wages. These facts reinforced the seriousness of the offense and the lack of remorse.

Labor law generally protects workers from dangerous treatment at work and from employer conduct that worsens an injury. It can require employers to follow workplace-safety duties, respond appropriately to medical emergencies, and pay wages lawfully. These protections generally apply to migrant workers as well, although the article does not explain the relevant rules in detail.

Here, the court found Labor Standards Act violations alongside aggravated bodily injury. The court said the owner resisted providing treatment, urged the injured worker to leave the country, and deducted medical expenses caused by the assault from his wages. Those facts show why access to care and protection from financial retaliation matter.

The article does not specify the exact legal provisions, enforcement process, or remedies available to the worker. It does show that an employer’s authority does not excuse violence or interference with treatment. The three-year sentence also signals the serious consequences the court imposed for the combined harm.