1. As to the abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights by Defendant A, B, and C

A. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, “an abuse of official authority” in the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights under Article 123 of the Criminal Act means the unlawful exercise of a public official’s general official’s matters belonging to his/her official authority. In other words, in a formal and external manner, the case where a public official appears to have performed an act other than legitimate authority. The criteria for determining whether a public official’s abuse of authority constitutes abuse of authority ought to be determined by taking into account all the elements, including the specific public official’s act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11884 Decided January 27, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11884, Jan. 27, 2012). The lower court, based on its employed evidence, supported AGH (hereinafter “AH”), controlled, coordinated, and supervised and supervised the affairs under the jurisdiction of the AI (hereinafter “AI”), such as the administrative affairs of universities, while working as AGH, by assisting AGH (hereinafter “AH”). Defendant A, who is in charge of controlling and supervising the affairs under the jurisdiction of the AH office, ordered the AIO and the officer AC through the AU of the AH office, instruct the AF University to prepare a plan for avoiding administrative sanctions of the AF University subject to the disposition, and ② AU, instructed AF University to “the withdrawal of personnel measures from the AF University’s on its site,” instructed the head of the AAI office to suspend the investigation and to provide AFC with a single request for review to the AF Committee.