The judgment below

The part of the Decision 2015, 1058 shall be reversed.

The defendant is a crime of the judgment of the court below [2015 High Court No. 1058].

1. Scope of the trial for the relevant case after the progress of trial and the transmission thereof;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges in the 2015 High Order 3857, 2015 High Order 1058 (Joint) and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million.

B. The lower judgment was reversed ex officio on the grounds that the Defendant appealed the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal doctrine and misunderstanding of sentencing, and the lower court’s judgment was final and conclusive on the grounds that each of the above two crimes and each of the crimes committed by a group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act became final and conclusive. The lower judgment was reversed ex officio on the grounds that each of the crimes committed by Article 3857 of the High Court Decision 2015 and 2015 High Court Decision 1.50,000 won each

(c)

The defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1 million, and the Supreme Court sentenced the above summary order to a more severe punishment than that of the above summary order on the case No. 2015 and 1058, and the defendant violated the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as provided in Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, reversed the part of the judgment before remand, and remanded this part to the court, and dismissed the remainder of the defendant's appeal.

(d)

If so, the Supreme Court's 2015 High Order 3857 of the judgment before remand became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal, this Court shall judge only the 2015 High Order 1058.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. The Defendant: (a) instructed the employees to employ only foreigners who are qualified for employment; and (b) the employees engaged in all business activities relating to the employment of foreign lecturers; (c) the Defendant did not engage in any activity employing a foreigner who has no status of stay; and (d) did not intend to commit such activity.

B. In light of the legal principles, the foreigners of this case employed foreigners who have no status of sojourn (E-1) that allows them to engage in job-seeking activities in Korea, and thus, the Defendant employed foreigners who have no status of sojourn that allows them to engage in job-seeking activities.