logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.10 2016고정1556
출입국관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 2011, China's nationality C used a passport issued by a national of the Republic of Korea to illegally enter Canada via the Republic of Korea. After requesting a forged passport with which the name is unknown to forge or forge a Korean passport, the foreign national C obtained a fake passport ( passport number) from a person whose name is unknown, and tried to illegally enter Canada via the Republic of Korea by using it.

Defendant and D had C illegally enter Canada via Korea using the above passport of the Republic of Korea in the name of D, and the Defendant purchased a Canadian boarding ticket in the name of D and delivered it to D through Kwikset Service, and D, around 13:00 on August 9, 201, sent to C the "Canadian boarding ticket (AC064) on August 16:30, 201, as promised in its own name from the toilet prior to the departure of the Incheon International Airport located in Jung-gu Incheon International Airport, Jung-gu, Incheon.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with D, provided a foreigner a boarding pass for the purpose of illegally allowing another country to enter via the Republic of Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Examination of suspect suspect regarding D by the prosecution;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;

1. A investigation report (Board pass held by a Suspect A) and liquidity specification inquiry (A);

1. Examination reports, including a false or altered passport;

1. The protocol of seizure (a) denies the fact that a third party (C) was aware of prior to August 9, 201 that the Defendant intended to depart from the Republic of Korea using a passport and boarding pass in the name of D or that it had been for this purpose). However, the defense counsel’s assertion is a non-resolution factor that “the fact that the Defendant was aware of the actual destination of D at the time of purchase of D’s Canadian boarding pass (C’s request)” (the counsel also explicitly stated it).

arrow