Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Defendant

A is a representative director of the food manufacturing company, the representative director of the "B", and the "B" of the "B" in the land outside of the wife population in Yongsan-si, the purpose of which is to manufacture food.

1. Defendant A, even though he was not allowed to employ a person not having the status of stay, employed Defendant A at around 14:00 on January 22, 2014, at the rate of 70,000 per day to “D” (E) “F” (GG students, souths) who is the Philippines that did not have such status of stay, with the employment of 90,000 per day.

2. The same corporation B committed the act of violation as described in the preceding paragraph, which is an employee of the defendant, in relation to the defendant's business at the above date, time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A certificate of foreign employment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each statement;

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

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;