A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From around 2003, the Defendant was engaged in the international marriage brokerage business on the pretext of name, and actually engaged in a disguised marriage with Korean nationals with a view to facilitating the issuance of domestic visa against foreigners who want to be employed in Korea, and was engaged in disguised marriage brokerage business on behalf of Korean nationals, and was engaged in a disguised marriage brokerage business on behalf of Korean nationals, and since 2012, the Defendant was engaged in the trade business exporting cosmetics and red ginseng products to China, and there was no ability to vicariously issue domestic visa to foreigners and arrange their employment in Korea through legitimate procedures.

At around 2010, the Defendant, while engaging in the international marriage brokerage business, became aware of the victim C who operates international marriage counseling centers in Vietnam, followed her friendship. At around 2013, the Defendant used her friendship relationship with the victim to receive money from the victim in exchange for the payment of expenses for domestic employment of Vietnam and for job placement.

On August 25, 2013, the Defendant, at the residence of the victim C in Vietnam, concluded that “B is currently engaged in manpower forwarding, and may have up to 48 Vietnam employed at the shipbuilding yard called D located in Yong-do, Jeonnam-do. The Defendant used USD 4,000 per capita per capita for a State visa issuance and route visa, and all of the employees will be employed in Korea.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant was engaged in trade in cosmetics and red ginseng products, but did not engage in manpower forwarding business, and it was difficult to take the procedure once a year that did not enter into employment contract with D and that the period of non-self-issuance would expire. Therefore, even if the Defendant received the above money from the victim, he did not have any intent or ability to have Vietnam employed them to D.

The Defendant, from the victim on August 25, 2013, would like to know three million won from the victim at the time of Vietnam's late late August 25, 2013.