Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to run an international marriage brokerage business shall register with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the area where he/she intends to establish a brokerage office in compliance with the standards prescribed by Presidential

Nevertheless, Defendant C, without registering with the competent authorities, conspiredd to engage in the marriage brokerage business for marriage between South and North Korea women and the Philippines women, and received KRW 500,000,000 in cash from D in return for mediating marriage with D and E around December 2014 and delivery of KRW 1 million in cash and KRW 20,000 in the Philippines.

Accordingly, the defendant and C carried out the marriage brokerage business without registration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Partial statement of the witness C;

1. Statement in the police statement protocol against E;

1. Application of each statute to include the details of passbook transactions, the detailed statement of transactions in foreign currency, basic data on international marriage interview, etc., the details of victim mobile phone text, and the current status of entry or departure of each individual;

1. Article 26 (1) 2 and Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Management of Marriage Brokerage Business through which the relevant criminal facts are applicable, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive selection of fines,) concerning the selective marriage brokerage business;

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

1. The Defendant guilty of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order: (a) received money by introducing Korean women from D and E; (b) however, it is denied the charges by asserting that the Defendant, who received travel expenses, etc., does not constitute a marriage and a quid pro quo, but rather was engaged in international marriage brokerage business on a single-time basis.

According to each evidence of the judgment, the following facts are recognized:

(a) The Defendant: ① from July 21, 2014 to July 26, 2014; ② from November 3, 2014 to November 15, 2014; ③ from December 15, 2014 to December 27, 2014; and ④