2. The crime of this case is a situation favorable to the defendant, where the defendant employed 11 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn that the defendant would engage in job-seeking activities as the representative director of (ju) B, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, the fine of KRW 1 million is imposed as a violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act around 1999, and the fine of KRW 2 million is imposed as a violation of the Building Act on around 2013 as well as there is no other criminal records.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime even once he/she received a disposition of notice on the same kind of crime, and the employment of a foreigner who has no status of sojourn should be eradicated as an act that may interfere with the affairs of the immigration control of foreigners, and should also be eradicated as an act that may interfere with the affairs of the immigration control of foreigners. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of the crime, means and consequence, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.