logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.23 2019고정84
출입국관리법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9,000,000.

Defendant

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling plastic products, and Defendant A is the representative director of the above corporation.

1. The defendant A shall not employ any foreigner who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities;

Nevertheless, from June 15, 2018 to August 7, 2018, the Defendant employed 9 foreigners who did not have such status of stay as above as indicated in the attached list of crimes, including that the Defendant would pay D, a Thailand, which was the 1.6 million won per month, at the office of the B Co., Ltd. located in Masung City from Jun. 15, 2018 to pay 1.6 million won per month.

2. Defendant B, a representative director of the Defendant, employed 9 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities, as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. An immigration offender, accusation or written opinion;

1. Application of the list of employed foreigners and the Acts and subordinate statutes confirming employment of foreigners;

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

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendants employed many foreigners who do not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities, and the character, conduct and quality of the crime are not good. However, the Defendants do not seem to have any circumstance such as the confession of the facts of the crime of this case, and the correction of their mistakes, and delayed or delayed payment of wages to the foreigners of this case, and there is no criminal record for the Defendants.

arrow