Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won.

However, the defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the user who is engaged in the manufacturing industry as the representative director of the corporation B in both weeks, and the defendant B is the company that manufactures paper cup.

1. The defendant A shall not employ a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities;

Nevertheless, from July 18, 2016 to April 26, 2017, the Defendant employed 20 foreigners who have no status of stay, such as the entry in the list of crimes in the attached Form, as the condition that the Defendant would pay monthly salary of KRW 1.2 million to other persons who are not eligible to engage in job-seeking activities at the above workplace.

2. Defendant B’s representative, Defendant B, was employed by a foreigner who does not have the status of stay as the aforementioned “paragraph 1” re-employment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each foreigner's statement;

1. Application of an investigation report on current status quo, a certificate of employment of foreigners, a corporation business operator registration certificate, a notice of decision on examining an immigration offender, and a certified copy of the corporate registry;

1. Defendant A who commits a crime: Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 99-3 subparagraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act, and Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act;

1. Defendants who are subject to aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37 and Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B corporation with the provisional payment order: The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the number of employees employed by the illegal aliens of this case is not many, Defendant A has the same criminal record, Defendant A has the same criminal record: Provided, That all of the crimes of this case are contrary to the recognition of the crime of this case, there is no same criminal record as the suspended execution, and the circumstances leading to employment of the illegal aliens of this case