Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine, 50,000.

1. Defendant A, as the operator of the corporation B, from February 2, 2013 to May 21, 2013, indicated in the list of crimes, such as D, etc. of Chinese nationality, the period of stay of which expires at the construction site of the building north-gu in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, the ten foreigners who did not hold the status of stay for ten times more than ten times, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table 10 of the instant indictment, as the operator of the corporation B, indicated the name of the foreigners employed differently from the list of crimes in this case, but according to the records, the “F” appears to be a clerical error in the list of crimes in this case, and it is determined that such recognition is not any disadvantage to the Defendants’ right to defense, and thus, this judgment

employment was made.

2. Defendant B, a representative, employed 10 foreigners who did not have the status of stay as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

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

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 94 Subparag. 9 and Article 18(3) of the former Immigration Control Act (Amended by Act No. 12195, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Selection of Fines) (Article 18(3))

(b) Stock company B: Subparagraph 2 of Article 99-3, Article 94 subparagraph 9, and Article 18 (3) of the former Immigration Control Act;

1. Defendants who aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

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

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act