Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative of corporation B in Kimpo-si, and the defendant corporation B is a corporation with the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing mobile phone music.

1. No person who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities shall employ a person who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities;

Nevertheless, around November 13, 2012, the Defendant employed 12 foreign nationals F of Thailand nationality who did not have status of stay in the said state(B) at KRW 1.3 million per month, as well as from November 11, 2014 to November 11, 2014.

2. The defendant B, at the same time and place as the above Paragraph (1) above, A, the representative of the defendant, committed an act of violating the employment of the defendant as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The application of each written accusation or each written notice of decision on examining an immigration offender;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

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: The written indictment in Article 99-3 of the Immigration Control Act is written as “Article 93-3” but it is obvious that it is a clerical error.

Sub-paragraph 2, Article 94 subparagraph 9

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;