The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant is a person who operates a cafeteria, a general restaurant.

Any person who intends to conduct domestic fee-charging job placement services shall register with the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction

Nevertheless, on July 29, 2015, the Defendant, without registering fee-charging job placement services, introduced E operators F from E offices located in Sinpo City D to job seekers G to arrange employment contracts to be concluded. On that basis, the Defendant received 320,000 won for food and accommodation expenses to be repaid to the Defendant by job seekers G and conducted fee-charging job placement services.

2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant introduced G to the I who operated the H salt farm through the president upon G's request that he was aware of the job at the time of the instant case. The defendant introduced G to the G at the time of the instant case, and I met with G to the purport that "I shall be given 1,300,000 won as it is possible to have a good salt and salt," and it is acknowledged that I concluded an employment contract with G by setting the monthly salary of KRW 1,30,000 with G. In light of this, it is reasonable to view that the defendant arranged the establishment of the employment contract between G and I to have arranged employment contract.

However, job placement services under Article 19(1) of the Employment Security Act are provided with continuous job placement services with continuous intention, and if conducted under the intention of repeated and continuous performance even if it does not require repeated performance on several occasions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5025, Dec. 14, 2001). However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court are as follows: (i) the Defendant only operated a restaurant at the time of the instant case, but did not operate a job placement office; and (ii) the Defendant did not do so.