logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2017.06.29 2017도3005
출입국관리법위반
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 activities, in violation of Article 18(3) shall be punished.” Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act provides that no person shall employ a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act does not provide for a separate provision that the term "employee" includes all persons who act on behalf of an employer with respect to matters concerning foreign workers. Article 99-3 of the Immigration Control Act provides for both penalties that punishs a business owner who employs a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible to engage in job-seeking activities. However, in the case of a corporation, it is not the representative director, but the company is subject to the above provision. Under the principle of statutoryism, the penal law should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the language and text, barring any special circumstance. Considering the legislative intent of the Immigration Control Act and the legislative circumstance under which restrictions on the employment of foreign workers are established, with respect to the employment of a foreigner who does not have the status of sojourn eligible to engage in job-seeking activities, the representative director alone cannot be deemed to constitute "employee" under Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act.

2. The lower court: (a) received human resources from “X” from the time when C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) started the instant construction of multi-household housing; (b) had employed foreign workers even before the instant accident occurred; and (c) received information on the resident registration number, foreigner registration number, etc. of workers from “X”.

arrow