[2] The case holding that in a case where a retired public official worked as an assistant to the Financial Supervisory Service Planning and Coordination Bureau, entrusted by the Securities Inspection Bureau to investigate whether a certain branch of a financial company Gap was voluntarily traded and notified the result to the Securities Inspection Board, and was employed by the said financial company Gap within two years from the date of his retirement, the above processing affairs do not constitute "the case where he directly performs supervisory duties based on laws and regulations" and thus do not constitute grounds for employment

[2] The case holding that, in case where a retired public official worked as the assistant to the Financial Supervisory Service Planning and Coordination Bureau, delegated by the Securities Inspection Bureau to investigate whether a certain branch of a financial company Gap, performed a field inspection, and notified the result thereof to the Securities Inspection Bureau, and was employed by the said financial company Gap within two years from the date of retirement, the handling duties of the above retired public official's department does not constitute "a case in which the above company Gap or its branch directly performed supervisory duties based on the Acts and subordinate statutes", and thus does not constitute grounds for employment restriction.

Article 17(1) and (3) of the Public Service Ethics Act prohibits retired public officials who have been engaged in a certain position or job area from being employed in a profit-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private-making private sector.

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence adopted by the court below, even if the defendant was within three years before his retirement from the Financial Supervisory Service and 4 days from November 16, 2004 to November 19, 2004, when he worked as the head of the planning and coordination office of the Financial Supervisory Service, he was delegated by the first country of the principal securities inspection office, which is the department in charge of the inspection of financial institutions, to investigate whether ○○○ branch's voluntary trading of △△○ branch's △△○ branch's business internal control of the above branch's above branch's business, and then notified the result to the securities inspection office, it does not constitute a case where ○○○ branch's above ○○ branch's management work is not a case where the above △△ branch's management work belongs to the planning and coordination office under the above organization management regulations and is merely a case where the above ○○ branch's management work is directly performed, and it is not a case where the public prosecutor's inspection office's inspection and response to the above local financial institutions's business.

As above, the conclusion of the judgment below that the defendant's act of employment in a profit-making private enterprise within 2 years from the date of his retirement does not objectively constitute the grounds for employment restrictions under the above Acts is justifiable, regardless of whether the judgment below regarding the defendant's criminal intent is justifiable.

As alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 32 (2) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Service Ethics Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)