The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Interference with the employment of He from the newly admitted job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related job-related charge is that the Defendant ordered L, M, and N to pass

However, there was no document stating “the list of applicants who passed the interview” separately from the final list of applicants. Even if such document exists, H was included in the list from the original date, and even if “the list of applicants who passed the interview” that was not included was temporarily found, the final list was not yet determined. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that H’s inclusion in the “list of applicants who passed the interview” constitutes interference with the business.

② There was no fact that the Defendant, from J, heard a talk that H was the final escape of H, or instructed L, M, or N to pass a pass in connection with the employment of H.

③ Even if the Defendant committed any act related to the employment of H against L, M, and N, H was included in the original list of persons who passed the interview, and thus, there is no causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the passing of the H.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute a obstruction of business by fraudulent means.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B) The Defendant instructed N to pass a revision in compliance with the criteria for passing the interview score of theO that failed to pass the interview score, and the O increased the interview score, and the P was selected as the final successful applicant instead of the initial successful applicant, if the interview score of theO was adjusted.

(1) However, the Defendant did not know about theO and its subsidiaries, and there was no solicitation for employment from them, and the Defendant did not comply with the foregoing.