All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged by rejecting the credibility of the victim's statement made by the police of the police of the victim AE, although it is possible to fully acknowledge this part of the facts charged due to the statement made by the victim AE (the defendant A) on the charge of misconception of facts, is erroneous in matters of law

The court below rejected the credibility of each of the statements made at AS and AT police based on the respective legal statements of AS and AT, and acquitted all of the facts charged, so the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts. The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Article 22 of the Immigration Control Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 2010, Jan. 1, 2011) provides that the defendant A, who is the actual operator of defendant B, may be found guilty of this part of the facts charged that he falsely applied for a visa issuance certificate by forging the worker dispatch contract in the name of AR with respect to the business of the defendant B.

Since the court below acquitted Defendant A and B of this part of the facts charged on the premise that he was able to do so, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (5 million won of fine) imposed by the court below (as to Defendant A) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (i) The lower court duly adopted and examined the allegation of misunderstanding of facts against Defendant A.