Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, by imprisonment for three months, respectively.

except that from the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall arrange or solicit the employment of a person not having the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities in the Republic of Korea.

Nevertheless, Defendants A and B conspired to operate a fee-charging job placement office under the Fudio 101 in Yangsan-si, taking charge of overall control over the above job placement office, and Defendant C and Defendant D decided to introduce jobs to foreigners who have no status of stay to work while working as an employee at the above job placement office, and to take charge of management of foreigners, such as workplace bus operation and settlement of monthly pay.

From January 1, 2014 to September 26, 2016, the Defendants arranged employment of 40 foreign workers who did not have the status of sojourn as shown in the attached Table from around the day of the above recruitment to September 27, 2016, to receive 12% of the monthly salary from the company other than the company designated by the Ministry of Labor and to receive 12% of the monthly salary from the company that could not work as a non-professional job. In addition, from around that time to around September 27, 2016, the Defendants arranged employment of 40 foreign workers who did not have the status of employment as shown in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Written statements and statements by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on accusation to immigration offenders;

1. As to the pertinent statutory provisions regarding criminal facts, Articles 94 subparag. 10 and 18 subparag. 4 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 30 of the Criminal Act, Defendant B and the defense counsel on the choice of imprisonment. Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of seven million won at the Ulsan District Court on November 3, 2016 as a crime of violating the Immigration Control Act, and confirmed around that time. Defendant B’s violation of the Immigration Control Act is a business crime, and thus, the criminal facts of this case must be acquitted since the final judgment became final and conclusive.

The violation of the Immigration Control Act is identical to the act in the nature of the composition requirement.