Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates B, which is a production contractor, and the defendant B is a corporation established for human resources supply business.

1. When a person who intends to employ a foreigner, he shall employ in Korea a person who has the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities;

Nevertheless, the Defendant employed 10 foreigners who did not have the status of stay for job-seeking activities, as described in the separate list of crimes, from around that time to April 5, 2016, in the old Si (State) where the contract was entered into around March 29, 2016, as well as the employment of 10 foreigners who did not have the status of stay for job-seeking activities, as described in the separate list of crimes, from around that time.

2. Defendant B, at the date, time, and place under the preceding paragraph, employed 10 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn that Defendant A, the employees of the Defendant, would have engaged in job-seeking activities like the preceding paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as an accusation against an immigration offender, written opinion, written notice of decision on examining an immigration offender, written confirmation of foreign employment, written statement, comprehensive records inquiry of persons related to departure, business registration certificate, contract document

1. Defendant A: Article 94 subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act, Article 99-3 subparag. 2 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 94 subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act, and Article 18(3) of the same 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 at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The crimes of this case appear to have been committed because of urgent human resources having reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Defendant B closed down his business; Defendant A’s mistake was divided; Defendant A did not have the same criminal record.