행정사법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who was a person of Bangladesh, who had entered the Republic of Korea in 2002 and had acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea in 2004, was operating a restaurant in Yangju-si, who received certain fees from those who were subject to refugee visa applicants and arranged the procedures and documents concerning refugee visa applications.
E, in Bangladesh, is a foreigner of his nationality who has been issued a visa application visa as of April 19, 2016 after the expiration of the current period of stay.
No person, other than a licensed administrative agent, shall engage in the business of preparing documents concerning preparation of documents, rights and obligations, or verification of facts submitted to an administrative agency.
On April 8, 2016, at around 16:00, the Defendant: (a) received a request for the assistance of refugee applications from E, who is Liberia, for the purpose of engaging in administrative affairs, even though he/she is not a licensed administrative agent; (b) prepared a refugee integration application as if he/she was aware that the above E does not constitute a ground for refugee status, and then received KRW 400,000 in return for the request from the above E, and carried out administrative affairs without any justifiable qualification.
2. The term “business” of a sales agency means not only engaging in the business of a sales agency repeatedly or continuously, but also engaging in such business with a intention to repeat and continue to engage in such business.
The statements in this court and investigative agency of E, which provided remuneration with the help of the defendant to prepare a refugee application one time on a contingency opportunity, carried out such affairs with the defendant's intention to repeat and continue such affairs.
There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant was "business" of a licensed administrative agent.
It shall not be readily concluded.
3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.