직업안정법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Seized evidence 1 to 6 shall be confiscated.
1. The decision of the court below (a year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
The court below held that each crime committed in violation of the Employment Stabilization Act and the Immigration Control Act is a separate crime and has the relationship of substantive concurrent crimes.
The decision was determined.
However, the crime of this case committed by the defendant as part of the fee job placement business without being registered by the defendant and recommended the employment of foreigners who do not have the status of sojourn as part of the fee job placement business. Thus, the crime of violation of the Vocational Stability Act and the crime of violation of the Immigration Control Act constitute several crimes, and the crime of violation of the same act constitutes a regular
must be viewed.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which aggravated concurrent crimes by applying the former part of Article 37 and Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Code concerning substantive concurrent crimes to the defendant is erroneous in violation of the law and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Punishment of the crime
No person shall arrange or solicit the employment of foreigners who do not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities as a business, and any person who intends to operate a domestic fee-charging job placement business shall register with the competent authority.
On January 13, 2016, the Defendant sent three photographs from the F Office located in Pyeongtaek-si E to a foreign employee who is not qualified for employment, and confirmed whether to employ the said foreign employee by transmitting them to G, and then inform G of the employer’s location and contact address.