The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of eight million won) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, May 19, 2018). It is recognized that the crime of this case is a case in which the Defendant employed 11 persons who did not have the status of sojourn eligible to engage in job-seeking activities from May 19, 2018 to June 21, 2018 as employees. The above act is not likely to cause considerable harm, such as disturbing the domestic labor market and promoting the illegal stay of foreigners. Article 103(1) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 86(1) and [Attachment Table 8] of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, and Article 86(1) [Attachment Table 8] of the Immigration Control Act provides for KRW 14 million as the criteria for the determination of penalty in cases of violations of Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act.

However, the court's sentencing is not bound by the penalty standards provided for in Article 86 (1) and [Attachment 8] of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act, and Article 86 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Immigration Control Act provides that the court may reduce the sentence within the limit of 1/2 of the standard amount by taking into account the age and environment of the relevant immigration offender, motive and consequence of the relevant violation, capacity to bear the penalty, frequency of violation, etc. In this case, in light of the period and frequency of the Defendant's crime in this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court's punishment violated the penalty standards provided for in