The guilty part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and fine of two.

A. The lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged as to Defendant B’s abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the abuse of official rights and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights as follows. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the abuse of official rights and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. A) The Director-General of PP and the AI, who is the person who assessed the performance record (hereinafter “verification”), sought opinions from Defendant B, the appointing authority, prior to performing his official duties for Grade 5 public officials of the Incheon Metropolitan Office of Education (hereinafter “rester”), and Defendant B presented only his opinion on the attitude of ordinary performance

Defendant

B Since the appointment authority is R, it cannot be deemed unlawful to present the above opinion.

B) A public official of N, who is a working assistant of the N Committee, performed duties as a person in charge of the work in order to make materials on the level and precedence of the daily score to be presented to the Committee. During that process, the head of P Bureau and AI et al. have partially reflected the opinions of Defendant B, and cannot be deemed to have been bound by Defendant B’s opinion. Thus, Defendant B did not have any awareness or intent that the N Team leader supported the performance of duties in violation of the standards and procedures for the performance of duties.

2. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Local Public Officials Act by Defendant B is merely presenting an opinion without designating the priority order of promotion, and Defendant B would put a disadvantage to the members of the personnel committee.