logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.08 2018노1617
출입국관리법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the records that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the records of the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution, etc., the defendant had at least dolusent intent as to the employment of this case.

Recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. From January 2, 2017 to March 27, 2017, the Defendant, as the representative director of the Company B, employed 15 foreigners who were not qualified to engage in job-seeking activities, such as Vietnam’s nationality D, while performing steel reinforced concrete construction works at the site of new apartment construction in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and employed 15 foreigners who were not qualified to engage in job-seeking activities as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

B. The lower court’s determination is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was a person employed by the instant foreigner only by the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

On the other hand, on the ground that there is no proof of a crime, the Criminal Procedure Act Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act was sentenced to innocence.

(c)

1) Article 94 Subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act provides that “Any person who employs a person who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment in violation of Article 18(3)” shall be punished, and no person shall employ a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment in violation of Article 18(3).

Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act does not provide for a separate provision that all those who act on behalf of a business owner with respect to matters concerning foreign workers. Article 99-3 of the Immigration Control Act provides for both punishment for a business owner who employs a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities, but for a corporation, the representative director of the corporation.

arrow