beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.
However, as to the Defendants, this case is against the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On February 8, 2017, D, who was staying illegally in the Republic of Korea in violation of the legal doctrine of the defense of the Defendants, had been forced to leave the Republic of Korea on February 8, 2017, received money by taking advantage of the fact that the illegal aliens in Russia did not know the Korean language and received permission for stay, and the Defendant A, a student of Russia, who is a student of Russia, well aware of Korean language, and was illegally staying in the past, and conspired with the Defendant B, who was actually issued a refugee visa, by making a false statement at the examination of issuance of the visa according to D’s advice, as follows.
D Of course, Defendant A, as well as Defendant A, intended to forge and deliver a written confirmation of the fact that Defendant A applied for a stay permit to an immigration control office of the Ministry of Justice because there was no ability to obtain a legally binding stay permit. Defendant A, without giving notice to Defendant B, will take the role of sharing the personal contact to each party when the illegal aliens are off, Defendant A would take the role of forging the written confirmation of the stay permit, which is an official document, and Defendant B would take the role of gathering illegal aliens who want to obtain a legally lawful stay permit, and then obtain a stay permit against the illegal aliens.
Prior to the ruling.
Defendant
B was requested on January 2017 to the effect that, in the Robes cafeteria F cafeteria located in the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, D received money and received a legal stay permit, G will only obtain a legitimate stay permit, a illegal resident, who contacted with D and received a legitimate stay permit.
G, at the time of making such a request, is a business of a country or a public official, and since the defendants, including D, can actually obtain a lawful sojourn qualification because they are through a public official.
I think.