In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Although the Defendant was prohibited from employing a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment, the Defendant employed five Chinese nationals, such as B, C, D, E, and F, who do not have the status of employment, and had him/her engage in ice-related duties by giving KRW 65,00 per day from February 8, 2013 to March 6, 2013 and having him/her engage in ice-related duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant representative director G’s legal statement;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. The application of a written accusation, a written notice of examination and decision, and a written confirmation of foreign employment;

1. Article 99-3 subparagraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the same Article, and Article 18 (3) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

3. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act above.