On October 208, 2014, at around 20:00, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the above sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

2. The following circumstances revealed in the records of this case or significantly known to this court, the Defendant was appointed as the Director General of the Gangnam-gu Branch Office, and the Defendant was assigned to the Director General of the Secretariat on April 18, 2013, and there was no file received from F from the former Director General; “The Budget Request for 2015” and “the list of the Gu Budget Formulation Project” are prepared by each department of the branch office, and “F shall prepare the pertinent parts at each department of the branch office and obtain approval from the Defendant, and “F shall have the final files related to the budget including the said files, and “F shall have separate files related to the budget”; “F shall be in charge of its branch accounting and exercise; and “The ten file files deleted from the investigation records to the file list; and it is difficult to conclude that all of the files were deleted by the Defendant’s act on August 2014.

In addition to the instant file, since those other than the instant file are personal files of the Defendant, or are seen as files created by the Defendant for events or operations, the Defendant’s deletion of the said files on his computer that the Defendant had used, as long as he did not conduct a secretariat position.

of the branch, the branch has interfered with the operation of the branch.

It is difficult to see it.

even if the above file was deleted, there was no problem in the performance of its duties by the working person.

The budget request in 2015, 2013-4-18 Secretariat.