The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, violation of the Occupational Stabilization Act.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio as to the violation of the Occupational Stabilization Act among the facts charged in the instant case

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that a person who intends to engage in a fee job placement service shall register with the competent authorities.

Nevertheless, on October 208, the Defendant: (a) registered with the competent authority for the above G Sing practice room; (b) arranged three of the above entertainment reception workers as entertainment reception workers; and (c) received service fees of KRW 20,000 per hour (based on one person); and (d) acquired KRW 5,000 among them for the purpose of arranging and arranging the above entertainment reception; (c) from around that time until around December 8, 2008, the Defendant arranged the above entertainment reception workers to provide entertainment services; and (d) acquired the fee of KRW 50,000 per day by arranging them to provide entertainment service; and (d) acquired the fee of free registration fee of KRW 50,000 per hour.

B. Article 47 Subparag. 1 and Article 19(1) of the former Employment Stabilization Act (amended by Act No. 9795, Oct. 9, 2009); statutory penalty is imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding twenty million won; the statute of limitations is seven years pursuant to Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, it is true that this part of the prosecution was instituted on February 7, 2018 after seven years from December 8, 2008, which was the date on which the crime was terminated.

This part of the facts charged constitutes the completion of the statute of limitations and thus the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statute of limitations

In addition, the judgment of the court below regarding this part of the facts charged and the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced a single punishment, and the judgment of the court below is all.