1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is operating a forest processing business with the trade name of D in Sacheon City C.

No person shall employ any foreigner who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities.

Nevertheless, on October 16, 2017, the Defendant employed 20 foreign employees as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form, such as employing the E of the Thailand nationality, which was illegally staying in the office of the above company without having the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities, as an employee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A copy of the written employment report and a copy of the written employment report;

1. Application of a copy of notification of decision on examining an immigration offender and a copy of business registration certificate;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the relevant Act and Article 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of punishment;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime No. 20 times in the annexed Table No. 209 of the Criminal Code, the largest penalty for concurrent crimes);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant employs 20 foreigners who have no status of sojourn for job-seeking activities. The employment of foreigners who have no status of employment is in need of heavy punishment in terms of promoting the illegal stay in Korea of foreigners and impairing the nation's immigration control function. However, there are considerable number of foreigners employed due to the crime of violating the Immigration Control Act. However, there are unfavorable circumstances such as the confession and rebuttal of the crime of this case, the employment period is relatively short in the case of the remaining crimes except for Nos. 2, 6, 19, and 20 of the crime list, and the defendant discontinued his business after detection, and the defendant does not have any record of punishment for the same crime until the crime of this case is committed and exceeds the fine.