logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.12 2016고단6769
출입국관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person operating D’s “D” without registering a business operator on the second floor of C Building in eternity.

No person shall employ any foreigner who has no status of sojourn eligible for employment activities.

Nevertheless, the defendant from September 1, 2016 to the same year.

9. From May to May, 1, 200, between the above “D”, the Defendant employed 7 foreigners who did not have the status of sojourn eligible for employment as shown in the attached list of crimes, as the condition that monthly salary of KRW 1,200,000,000, who entered the Republic of Korea under the qualification B-1 (Visa exemption) that does not constitute the status of sojourn eligible for employment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding accusation, examination decision, certificate of employment of foreigners, and detailed inquiry into immigration records;

1. Article 94 subparagraph 9 of the relevant Act and Articles 18 (3) of the Immigration Control Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which recognize and reflects the mistake of the foreigner’s reason for the sentencing, the period for which the foreigner who does not have the status of stay is short-term, the fact that there is no previous conviction, and other defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as per the order, taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow