209No1117 Violation of the Immigration Control Act

1. A1 (Year 59, South Korea);

2. A24 years old, South Korea)

3. A3 (Attending 69 Years, South Korea)

4. A4 (Year 58, South Korea)

Defendants

Efficiencies

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon (A1, a private ship for defendant A1)

Attorney Park Yong-chul (A2, a private ship for defendant A2)

Attorney Park Jin-bok (the national election for the defendant A3 and A4)

Busan District Court Decision 2009No751 Decided March 24, 2009

July 9, 2009

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 107 days in the original judgment against Defendant A1 and A3, and 105 days in the original judgment against Defendant A2, respectively, shall be included in the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant Al

Considering the fact that the Defendant fully recognized the facts charged of the instant case and reflected his mistake, the Defendant committed the instant crime beyond the attempt of a single president who led the entry and departure of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any record of committing the same kind of crime prior to the instant crime, and the Defendant suffered considerable difficulty in living in custody due to diseases such as food, calendar, and pulmonary farming, etc., the sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. In view of the fact that Defendant A2’s entire facts charged in this case recognized the facts charged, the depth of his mistake is divided, the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime is relatively minor, and the Defendant’s life was a seafarer for 25 years, but he led to a suspicion that he could easily impose money on the instant crime because he had considerable economic difficulties due to the exhaustion of fish resources and the economic depression, etc., the substantial profit gained by the Defendant from the instant crime is not significant, and the Defendant did not have any history of having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier, as well as there was no previous conviction, the lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

C. Considering that Defendant A3 fully acknowledges the facts charged in this case, his mistake is divided in depth, that the Defendant is a disabled person, and that the Defendant took a prisoner about the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

D. Considering that Defendant A4 fully acknowledges the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s mistake in depth is divided, and that the Defendant has caused the instant crime to be committed in order to prepare and report expenses for the surgery of the elderly mother, the economic benefits accrued from the instant crime are insignificant, and the Defendant’s economic conditions are difficult to cope with the fine, the lower court’s sentencing ( fine of KRW 7 million) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting smuggling, such as illegal stay or criminal conduct, is likely to be abused for international crimes. Moreover, the Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting smuggling, such as the crime of this case, need to be strictly punished. The Defendants shared their respective roles, prepared four times to assist the Defendants in the act of smuggling and 49 smuggling, and received considerable money in return for such crime, and thus, the crime is not good. Defendant A1’s act of aiding and abetting smuggling’s personal and material resources necessary for smuggling and distributing money received from her accomplices. Defendant A2 appears to have primarily participated in the crime of this case. Defendant A2 cannot be deemed to have committed the crime of this case, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting smuggling as well as the Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting smuggling; and (b) the Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting smuggling was committed by the captain of this case, and (c) the Defendants’ act of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s personal and material resources necessary for the smuggling’s crime of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on 107 days in prison prior to the pronouncement of this judgment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, to include the punishment of the lower judgment against Defendant A1 and A3, and 105 days in the punishment of the lower judgment against Defendant A2.

Presiding Judge, Judge Park Jung-chul

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju