A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a “D” unemployment week, a business establishment located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B and the Thaima branch located in the second floor.

If a foreigner intends to be employed in the Republic of Korea, he/she shall obtain the status of sojourn eligible for employment activities, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and no person shall employ a person having no status of sojourn prescribed by the Act.

Nevertheless, from April 10, 2018 to February 25, 2018, the Defendant employed E, as a marina branch, who entered the above business establishment, as a member of visa exemption (B-1).

Accordingly, the defendant employed a person who does not have the status of sojourn eligible for job-seeking activities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each notice of decision on examining an immigration offender;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing foreign employment certificates;

1. Relevant Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the Immigration Control Act, Article 18 (3) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. On February 15, 2017, the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence is as follows: (a) the Defendant has been subject to a notification disposition of a penalty of KRW 4 million for an illegal employment of two persons who are born at the place as indicated in its reasoning; (b) the Defendant had the record of having been punished by a fine of KRW 5 million by arranging sexual traffic on June 19, 2017 at the place indicated in its ruling; (c) the instant crime appears to have been committed in the extension line of the above crimes; and (d) the Defendant has the record of having been punished for the crimes of this kind.

However, considering the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to reflect upon recognizing each of the crimes in this case, and the closure of the “D” as indicated in the judgment, and the sentencing conditions as provided in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, as seen in the argument in this case, are also considered, a sentence like the order shall be imposed.