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

The Defendant, as a person operating the Taegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 202 Thresponding place, “C” in the name of “C,” and employed the Defendant, from April 4, 2015 to April 16, 2015, to pay KRW 1.3 million monthly salary, D and E, who entered the said Thresponding place business from around April 4, 2015 to April 16, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant employed a person who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 94 subparagraph 9 and 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act (Optional to Imprisonment) of the choice of punishment;

1. The reasons for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for the suspended sentence”) are already considered in light of the following circumstances: (a) even though there was a history of having been sentenced to the punishment of a fine for a violation similar to that of a fine on two occasions, repeated crimes are committed; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the crime; and (c) the sentencing conditions indicated in the record of the instant case, including the circumstances after