Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

It is reasonable to impose the above fine on C.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On September 25, 2015, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) employed foreigners (T and U) who have the status of stay (F-4) that the Defendant’s employees could not engage in simple labor activities at the site of new construction of multi-household housing in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

As a result, Defendant C employed a person who does not have a legitimate status of stay.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness V;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the details of accusation and industrial accident;

1. Article 99-3 subparagraph 2 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the same Article, and Article 18 (3) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The portion not guilty of Defendant A under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the provisional payment order

1. Around September 25, 2015, Defendant A employed foreigners (T-U) who have the status of stay (F-4) that could not engage in simple labor activities at the site of new construction of multi-household housing in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

2. Article 94 Subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act provides that “Any person who violates the provisions of Article 18(3) shall be subject to criminal punishment,” and Article 18(3) of the Act provides that “no person shall employ any person who does not have the status of stay as provided in paragraph (1).”

The purport of the above law is to prevent foreigners without status of stay from being employed in Korea and illegally staying in Korea, so the authorities concerned will control and manage the entry and departure of foreigners.

In contrast, the purpose of the Labor Standards Act is to guarantee and improve the basic life of workers, and thus, a person other than an employer is trying to protect workers by imposing liability on workers as an employer.

As above, the purport of the two Acts is different, and Articles 94 subparag. 9 and 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act should be interpreted strictly as criminal punishment provisions, the concept of “employment” under Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act is “employer” under the Labor Standards Act.