However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On June 1, 2017, the Defendant is a person who had been sentenced to a fine of seven million won by the Seoul Southern District Court due to a violation of the Immigration Control Act, and is the operator of a Mabro business establishment.

No one shall employ a person who has no qualification to engage in job-seeking activities in the Republic of Korea.

Nevertheless, from May 23, 2017 to January 10, 2018, the Defendant entered “B” located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as “B”, and around May 4, 2017, the Defendant employed 13 Thailand who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment in the Republic of Korea, such as written in the list of crimes in attached Form 1, for each customer, with a monthly salary of KRW 1,500,000 per 1.5% of the cost of marina for each customer who was staying in Korea. The Defendant employed 13 persons who had no status of sojourn eligible for employment in the Republic of Korea as indicated in the list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement statement by each police (number 10 to 23 each time);

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on January 10, 2018, two copies of printed photographs, 13 copies of the 13 emergency protective note, which is a country in which it was discovered on January 10, 2018, 13 copies of the 13 immigration computerized system, which is a country in which it was discovered on January 10, 2018, 13 copies of the 13 immigration protective device, which is a country in which it was discovered on January 10, 2018, 1 copy of the 13 immigration protective document, and B business registration certificate; and

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the relevant Act, Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the following conditions of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence shall be comprehensively taken into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of each of the instant offenses, means and methods, and circumstances after committing the instant offenses, and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the trial process.

The defendant is at a disadvantage: July 13, 2017.