2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

The Defendant is a person who operates a shop shop in the “D” 209 of the second floor of the C Building at Speaker's Government.

No person shall employ any foreigner who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities.

Nevertheless, on June 20, 2018, from around July 10, 2018 to around July 10, 2018, the Defendant employed the total of nine persons, each of whom is the E (F livelihood, female), G (H), I (J life, female), K (L), M (N life, female), M (N life, female),O (P life, female), Q (R), Q (R), S (V), U (V (V life, female, female).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. Nine copies of the Thailand statement;

1. Written review and decision;

1. Business registration certificate;

1. Nine copies of a notice of decision on examining an immigration offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the list of married women;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the relevant Act and Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. The aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes is provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes provided for in the violation of the Immigration Control Act concerning employment of heavier E);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant employs nine foreigners who have no status of sojourn in employment activities as an employee of marina business establishment. The employment of foreigners who have no status of sojourn in employment activities is in need of heavy punishment in terms of promoting the illegal stay in Korea of foreigners and impairing the nation’s immigration control function.

In particular, on December 7, 2017, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he was subject to a disposition of KRW 7,000,000,000 on the ground that the Defendant employed four (4) who is a mother State without status of stay at a marina business establishment without status of stay, and therefore, the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime.

However, the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, and the employment period of the crime of this case is relatively short, and the defendant was in the past.