Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

1. Defendant A is a person who operates a livestock products processing business chain B corporation in Goyang-dong, Yongsan-gu, Manyang-si.

The Defendant employed the status of stay from January 12, 2015 to the 20th of the same month on the condition that, on the remuneration of KRW 1,200,000 per month, two foreign nationals of Thailand nationality D (E), male, and F (GGs and males) who do not have status of stay.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. and Defendant A committed a violation in relation to the Defendant’s business, as described in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the accusation (including attached documents) and a certified transcript of corporate register;

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act or more.