Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Defendant

A is the representative of week B in Gyeonggi Kimpo-si, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and installing elevators.

1. The Defendant A employed two foreigners (D and E) of Vietnam’s nationality who did not have such status of stay, even though he/she did not employ a person who does not have the status of stay to engage in employment activities in B from March 03, 2014 to October 17, 2014.

2. Defendant B, as stated in the preceding paragraph, had A, the representative of the defendant's business, employed an illegal aliens.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each written statement of foreigner D and E;

1. A written accusation or a written notice of decision on examining an immigration offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to certified corporate register;

1. Article 94 Subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 18(3) of the Act on the Selection of Punishment, etc.

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

1. Defendant A at 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