Defendant

A shall be punished by fine for negligence of KRW 8,000,000, and by fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a company director of construction business chain Co., Ltd., Ltd. and a person who operates the above company at the time of harmony.

No person shall employ any person who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities.

Nevertheless, from February 5, 2018 to March 6, 2018, the Defendant employed 15 Chinese workers who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities, such as the list of crimes in the separate sheet, to pay KRW 170,000 per day to China, the illegal staying person, whose period of sojourn expires at the D Corporation site in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, where the company was performed.

2. A, the representative of the defendant B, committed a violation as described in paragraph 1 in relation to the defendant's business at the time and place described in paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Notice of decision on examining an immigration offender, certificate of employment of foreigners, and business registration certificate;

1. A written employment statement and a foreigner registration statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing registration;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Article 94 Subparag. 9 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act, and selection of fines

(b) Defendant B: Articles 99-3 subparag. 2, 94 subparag. 9, and 18 subparag. 3 of the Immigration Control Act

1. Defendants who are subject to aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that Defendant A, the representative of the stock company, employed 15 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities, and that the crime of this case is not weak.

Defendant

A, even before committing the instant crime, has been notified of the penalty by employing a foreigner who has no status of sojourn for job-seeking activities.

However, the defendant A recognizes the crime of this case.