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

The defendant is the representative director of the company D, which is located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 805, and the employer who runs a service business (replacement business) by using 23 full-time workers.

Despite the fact that the Defendant should not engage in the business of dispatching workers for the direct production process of the manufacturing industry, the Defendant, on May 1, 2015, employed E as D staff of the said company, dispatched E to G located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, to engage in CNC processing, which is a direct production process, and employed 100 workers from May 2, 2015 to January 26, 2016, as shown in the crime list, from around May 2, 2015 to January 26, 2016, operated an illegal business of dispatching workers by dispatching 10 workers to the said G to engage in the NC processing, which is a direct production process.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the check of occasional supervision, written confirmation, and contract for dispatch;

1. Article 43 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Workers Dispatched and Article 5 (5) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Workers and the Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime;

2. The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) (the following favorable circumstances) of the Criminal Act reflects his fault in depth, and that there is only one time prior conviction of a minor fine.