The former part of Article 32-2(1) of the Education Act provides that public officials necessary for the Board of Education shall be appointed to assist the affairs of the Superintendent of the Office of Education of the Education Committee, and Article 2(2)6 of the Local Public Officials Act provides that public officials employed with a deadline shall be public officials in extraordinary civil service. According to the facts established by the original judgment, according to the facts established by the original judgment, the defendant is a public official employed with a deadline based on the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and cannot be called as a person engaged in simple labor. Therefore, there is no error in the judgment that

The issue is groundless.

As to the second ground for appeal:

Although the Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials was revised after the Defendant committed the principal crime, the qualification for appointment as a teacher of national school became a high school graduate, there can not be a complaint for the establishment of the crime at the time of the principal crime, and in the case of theory, it cannot be said that the act does not constitute a crime due to the change of law after the crime was committed. Therefore, it is not possible to adopt

With respect to the third ground for the same appeal:

The issue is ultimately an excessive sentencing, but this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

The argument on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s oral illness is eventually attributable to the assertion of mistake of facts and imposition of sentence, and thus, this case cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have jurisdiction over the red net leaves.