beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) against the Defendants of the lower court is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the extent that each punishment (a prison term of eight months, a suspended sentence of two years, a probation order, and a community service order of 120 hours) is too unfasible
2. Determination
A. Defendant A appears to be against the Defendant A when recognizing each of the instant crimes.
However, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendants employed foreigners who do not have the status of stay in the entertainment tavern operated by the defendants directly in a foreign country, and the quality of the crime is poor. Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, and employed 12 or more foreigners illegally. Furthermore, Defendant A employed 12 or more foreigners by himself, including criminal records and criminal punishment, and there is a need to strictly punish the defendants because there is considerable harm to society as a whole, such as impairing the effectiveness of the State's immigration control policy and promoting illegal stay of foreigners, etc. In addition, considering all of the factors of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case including Defendant A's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against Defendant A is deemed unreasonable, and the prosecutor's above assertion against Defendant A is with merit.
B. Each of the instant crimes against Defendant B is recognized as having employed foreigners who do not have status of stay in an entertainment drinking club operated by the Defendants by directly carrying in a foreign country, and the crime is not good in light of the circumstances, method, etc. of the crime.
However, Defendant B is against each of the crimes of this case, and Defendant B has no record of punishment in excess of the same kind and fine in the previous case, there is no change in special circumstances that could change the original sentence heavier than the original sentence after the sentence of the lower judgment, and other Defendant B.