The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. According to Article 101 of the Immigration Control Act, a case concerning an immigration offender cannot be prosecuted unless the head of the competent Regional Immigration Service files an accusation. In this case, there was no accusation from the head of the competent Regional Immigration Service. Thus, the court below which rendered a judgment dismissing public prosecution is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the judgment of dismissing public prosecution should

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a marina shop in the name of “C” in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seoul Metropolitan City.

No person shall employ any foreigner who has not obtained the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities in the Republic of Korea.

Nevertheless, the defendant from July 15, 2018 to the same year.

8. Between 14.1 and 14. The Minister of Justice received tourist visa from the Minister of Justice, and during which the period of stay has elapsed, D and E, a woman in other Ireland, were employed at the intervals of KRW 1.5 million per month.

B. The facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Articles 94 subparag. 9 and 18(3) of the Immigration Control Act, which can be prosecuted only when the head of the Regional Immigration Service files an accusation under Article 101(1) of the Immigration Control Act. There is no evidence to prove that there was a legitimate accusation by the head of the Regional Immigration Service with respect to the facts charged in this case. Thus, the facts charged in this case should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the prosecution procedure becomes invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act.

Nevertheless, the court below which sentenced the defendant to a fine of three million won is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is followed after pleading.