beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.06.16 2014고단4878

출입국관리법위반

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 8,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who actually operates the Cosmetics Manufacturing Business Co., Ltd., Ltd. in Yangju-si D.

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

Nevertheless, from October 1, 2014 to November 25, 2014, the Defendant employed 25 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible to engage in job-seeking activities, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, as well as employment of 25 foreigners who entered the same status of stay as the list of crimes.

2. Defendant B, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), committed a violation as described in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of foreigners;

1. A certificate of foreign employment or a notice of decision on examining an immigration offender;

1. Business registration certificate and certified copy of the register;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 18 (3) and (1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 94 subparagraph 1 of the same Article, Article 18 (3) of the same Act, and Article 18 (3) and (1) of the same Act, and Article 99-3 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the same Act,

1. Concurrent Crimes - Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse - Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants’ order of provisional payment - The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are to prevent the normal flow of the employment market by employing foreign workers who have no status of stay, thereby pursuing personal private interests.

The Defendants asserted that in the case of Korean workers, they have no choice but to use foreign workers in order to have the competitiveness by increasing wages and not doing any other work.