1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Although the actual employer of the foreigner of this case, who is the illegal sojourn condition in the summary of the grounds for appeal, is the defendant, the court below found the foreigner not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

For the first time, the prosecutor maintained the facts charged for the violation of the former Immigration Control Act against the defendant as the primary facts charged, and applied for the modification of the indictment with the same contents as the statement in the column of "criminal facts (preliminary facts)" in the “judgment to re-use the facts charged,” under Article 43 subparag. 1-2 and Article 7(3) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Dispatched Workers,” under the preliminary application of the law, while maintaining the ancillary facts charged for the violation of the former Immigration Control Act against the defendant as the primary facts charged, and this court permitted this.

In doing so, as examined in Paragraph 3 below, this Court has maintained the conclusion of the lower court that acquitted the Defendant on the primary facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained, inasmuch as the facts charged in the preliminary charge were subject to the judgment of the court, and this court found the defendant guilty of the conjunctive facts charged, as seen below, in the judgment of the court below that the previous primary facts charged was the subject of the judgment

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. From May 16, 2016 to December 2, 2016, the Defendant employed the Switzerland (E; hereinafter “foreigners of this case”) with no status of sojourn eligible for D’s arrangement at the business establishment of the E-conditioning parts manufacturing business located in Yongcheon-si, Young-si (hereinafter “E”).

B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the detailed circumstances indicated in the item “2. Determination” of the judgment.