Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of ten million won.

However, the defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative of Defendant B, internal director of Defendant B, and Defendant B is a corporation whose purpose is the textile processing business.

1. While Defendant A was prohibited from employing a person who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities according to the procedures prescribed by the Immigration Control Act, Defendant A employed 14 foreign workers who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities as shown in the separate list of crimes, including employment of Chinese nationality E at the place of business of Defendant B, a stock company located in both weeks from October 23, 2013 to November 5, 2013.

2. Defendant B, at the above date and place, had 14 foreign workers who had no status of stay that the representative A would engage in job-seeking activities as above in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each police investigation report;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 94 Subparag. 9 of the former Immigration Control Act (Amended by Act No. 12195, Jan. 7, 2014); Articles 18(3) and 18(3) of the former Immigration Control Act; the choice of imprisonment

(b) Defendant B: Subparagraph 2 of Article 99-3, Article 94 Subparag. 9, and Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act

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: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where Defendant A employed 14 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn that Defendant A would engage in job-seeking activities, and disturbs the order of immigration control, etc., are disadvantageous to the Defendants; however, the Defendants did not have the same criminal history; the Defendants did not have the same criminal history; and their mistake was remarkably divided; the details and motive of the Defendants’ employment of foreigners.