Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Defendant

A is the representative director of the corporation B in Kimhae-si, and the defendant corporation B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing electric products.

1. Although Defendant A was prohibited from employing a person who does not have the status of stay, the Defendant employed Defendant D (son. E) of his nationality in Bangladesh, from February 20, 2016 to April 25, 2016, in which he did not have the status of stay at the said stock company B’s place of business.

2. Defendant B, at the time and place specified in the above paragraph 1, Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant, committed a violation as described in the above paragraph 1 in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement by the Defendants (as at the third public trial date);

1. A written accusation against an immigration offender;

1. A certified copy of corporate registry;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes confirming employment of foreigners;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

(a) Defendant A: Article 94 subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 18 subparag. 3 (Selection of Penalty) of the Immigration Control Act;

(b) Defendant B: Subparagraph 2 of Article 99-3, Article 94 subparag. 9, and Article 18 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: there is a need to observe the provisions of the Immigration Control Act on the job-seeking activities and status of stay of foreigners on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is a strict punishment against the Defendants.

However, it is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants led to their crimes, and the social environment that emphasizes the efficiency of low-cost compared to the improvement of poor working conditions, appears to be one of the causes for the Defendants’ crime committed above, and the short term employment period of foreign workers in the instant case is short term.