However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 3, 2014, from around November 18, 2014 to around November 18, 2014, the Defendant employed Vietnam, who did not have the capacity to engage in job-seeking activities in the manufacturing company of the mutual calendar of “D” in “D” in “P”, at the intervals of KRW 60,000 per day.

In addition, the Defendant employed four foreigners who were not qualified to engage in job-seeking activities by the aforementioned means four times from October 3, 2014 to November 18, 2014, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A decision on examining and deciding an immigration offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Vietnamese F, to four statements;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 18 (3) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence has not been punished as the force of the same or similar kind of crime in the past, it is highly necessary to punish the person again.

However, the execution of the instant crime is suspended only once in consideration of the Defendant’s gender, age, economic circumstances, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.