Defendant

A and C fail to pay each of the above fines.

1. The Defendant, the Defendant, was the representative of the B Co., Ltd. located in Ansan-si, a member of Ansan-si, and was employed in B for two days from Oct. 13, 2017 to Oct. 14, 2017, upon introduction by the Defendant, the Defendant, who was the Defendant, was not a foreigner having no status of sojourn eligible to engage in job-seeking activities, even though he was unable to employ a foreigner having no status of sojourn eligible to engage in job-seeking activities.

2. Defendant B, a company running service business, etc., employed Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant, who was a Chinese-China E without the status of sojourn eligible for employment as described in paragraph (1).

3. Although Defendant C was prohibited from mediating the employment of a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities, the Defendant arranged the employment of Defendant C, a Chinese citizen, who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The qualification requirements for respective accusation forms and foreigner registration/electronic data of E attached thereto;

1. Identifying the details of the occurrence of foreign industrial accidents;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. Defendant A who is subject to the pertinent legal provisions and sentence regarding criminal facts: Article 94 subparag. 9 and Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act; Article 99-3 subparag. 2, Article 94 subparag. 9, and Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act; Article 18(4) of the Immigration Control Act;

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

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