However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

No person shall employ a person who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

On February 23, 2016, from around February 25, 2016 to February 25, 2016, the Defendant employed 100,000 won per month for women of Thailand nationality who do not have the status of stay eligible to engage in job-seeking activities after entering the “C” business operated by the Defendant located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as “B-1,” and employment all eight persons who do not have the status of stay eligible to engage in job-seeking activities, such as the employment of marina branch offices, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each statement (D, F, G, H, I, J, K, or L);

1. A certificate of employment of foreigners;

1. A charge of an immigration offender in the name of the director of the Seoul Southern Immigration Control Office;

1. Investigation report (verification of regulations concerning status of stay of foreigners);

1. Written review and decision;

1. Written opinion;

1. A notice of decision on examining each immigration offender;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the relevant Act and Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under the Criminal Act: The Defendant employed eight foreigners who do not have the status of sojourn eligible to engage in employment activities but do not have the status of sojourn on January 2015, and committed the instant crime. In addition, the act of foreign employment without the status of sojourn eligible to engage in employment activities such as the instant crime, which constitutes the instant crime, needs to be subject to punishment corresponding thereto in view of the following: (a) a foreigner’s employment without the status of sojourn eligible to engage in employment activities such as the instant crime, could have deducted the opportunity for employment of a national and a foreigner having the same status

The defendant's mistake is recognized as a favorable circumstance.