Defendant

A Imprisonment of six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of seven thousand won,00,000 won, respectively.

However, the defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a director of the B Co., Ltd. located in the Gu D 302 during Ansan-si, who actually operates the said Co., Ltd., and Defendant B Co., Ltd is a specialized construction corporation that performs steel reinforced concrete construction upon receiving a subcontract from a comprehensive construction company.

1. The defendant A shall not employ any foreigner who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities;

Nevertheless, from January 3, 2018 to February 28, 2018, the Defendant employed 16 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment as shown in the attached list of crimes, including employment of F (50) of Chinese nationality, which did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment, at the construction site of Incheon Metropolitan City E, from January 3, 2018 to February 28, 2018.

2. Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant, employed 16 foreigners who did not have the status of stay that could engage in job-seeking activities, such as Paragraph 1, at the same time, place, and the Defendant’s business at the same time and place as described in Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each accusation, a written statement, and a confirmation document;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Articles 94 subparag. 9 and 18 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act, and the choice of imprisonment

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

1. Article 37 (former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (defendant A) is not less complicated in light of the following: (a) the crime of this case interferes with the normalization of the employment market and the encouragement of illegal stay by the relevant foreigners; and (b) the number of illegal employees is not large.

However, the defendants reflects the wrong recognition, and they do not have the same criminal record as the defendant A.