Defendants shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a management director of the "B" corporation located in Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon, and the defendant B corporation is a corporation established for the purpose of construction business, etc.

1. When a person who intends to employ a foreigner, he shall employ a person having the status of sojourn eligible for employment in Korea as prescribed by the Presidential Decree;

Nevertheless, around June 16, 2018, the Defendant employed 20 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment, such as the entry in the list of crimes in the attached Form, as the construction site of the D main apartment complex at the construction site of Sejong-si, and employed 20 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment as shown in the list of crimes.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the Defendant’s act in violation of paragraph (1) on the date, time, and place of business as set forth in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Accusation of an immigration offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a list of foreigners for employment, written confirmation of employment, and statement of daily labor expenses;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 18 (3) of the same Act (generally, Article 94 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, Article 99-3 subparagraph 9 of the same Act, Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the same Act, and Article 18 (3) (generally, Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is deemed to have been committed by the Defendants illegally employing a foreigner without status of sojourn, and thus disturbing the order of immigration control, and thus, the nature of the crime is deemed to be bad. However, the Defendants are against the wrong and the criminal records of the same kind are deemed to have never existed, and there is no circumstance that the number of foreigners who illegally employed, the period of employment, and the foreigner who illegally employed were unfairly treated.