Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

All appeals by Defendant 1 and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

① Defendant 2, under the independent judgment that the portion of the paper related to history education would be high, based on the data prepared before and after the completion of a thesis related to history education in order to obtain good scores from the public bonds under the independent judgment that the portion of the paper related to history education will be higher, Defendant 2 merely published the thesis in “(name 1 omitted)” and does not constitute Defendant 1’s or Defendant 1’s good initiative in the process. Defendant 1 also held a meeting of the Board of Review with the result of the meeting of the Faculty and Public Bonds Management Committee to supplement the examination standards, which did not interfere with the above Defendants’ work of publishing the research paper as “number,” and the lower court found Defendant 2 guilty on the ground that the Defendants did not have any error of misapprehending the legal principles as to “the above Defendants’ work of publishing the research paper with the title of 15% or more of the 18 credits from the research paper as “the research paper’s instruction related to history education.” The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Defendant 2’s additional recruitment of the research paper.”

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) An inspection;

The sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts, etc.

(a) recognised facts

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the defendants' legal statements in the trial of the court below and the witness non-indicted 1's witness testimony in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

① On September 4, 2003, the ○○ teachers’ college published a public announcement to employ new professors, including one professor at society and education and one professor at each university and Internet, etc. After the said public announcement, Defendant 2 sent a phone call to Defendant 1, who had the director of the social department and education division at the time of the public announcement, and asked Defendant 1 to have an employment of professor at the university, and contacted several times from the date of the public announcement of employment to the date of the public announcement of the successful candidate (at the above period, the number of telephone conversations between the Defendants was not clearly stated, but from November 1, 2003 to November 26, 2003, Defendant 2 sent a total of 17 times to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 a total of 37 times to Defendant 2).

② On September 8, 2003, Defendant 1 opened social education and department meetings and reported to the Ministry of Education by establishing the standards for examination of the results of the publication of research (standards for examination of the results of the publication of research materials and the results of the publication of major thesis) among the regulations on public bonds by professors of society and professors. According to such standards, Defendant 1’s results of the publication of research materials are as follows: (a) at least 500% of the results of the publication; (b) at least 400% of the results of the publication of major thesis as “number”; (c) at least 30% of the results of the publication of major thesis as “number”; and (d) at least 200%

③ As of September 4, 2003, Defendant 2’s publication of the thesis was published as of September 4, 2003 in 8. Part 4 among them was published as a candidate for school career. Part 4, which was published as of June 2002 and December 2002 in 2, “The actual condition and development plan of “(title 2 omitted)” published as of December 2002 in 2nd ○○ Private School as of December 4, 2002, the term “the above ○ Private School’s publication of the thesis was published as 50% when it was evaluated as a candidate for school career.” However, Defendant 2’s objective major publication of the thesis was published as 2,200% prior to the above ○ Private School’s publication as of September 4, 2003. However, Defendant 2 knew that Defendant 2 was a candidate for school career in 20% prior to the above ○ Private School’s publication of the thesis (name 2 omitted).

④ On September 2003, Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted 1, the chairperson of the Korea ○○ University Editor, who was working as a vice-chairperson and a editing member, to take advantage of convenience as to the publication of the thesis by Defendant 2. Nonindicted 1, even if the compilation committee already completed and received the thesis, was able to submit a thesis within 2-3 days according to the above Defendant 1’s request. Accordingly, the above Defendant 2 did not first prepare a thesis related to historical education “(title 1 omitted)” on the basis of the above thesis “(name 2 omitted)” and then sent it to Nonindicted 1, who did not appear to have been sent to the prosecution, and Defendant 1 appears to have been able to do so without considering the date of receipt of the thesis, and Defendant 1 appears to have been able to submit the thesis to the prosecutor’s office’s right to make a statement without delay, and Defendant 1 appears to have been able to have presented the paper to the prosecutor’s office’s office’s name on September 23, 200.

⑤ On September 18, 2003, Defendant 1, who was decided to revise and supplement the examination criteria by the First Former Teachers’ Public Bonds Management Committee, and submit them to school officials by September 24, 2003, Defendant 1, holding a academic conference to establish social and educational programs and personnel regulations on September 24, 2003, and held at least 90% of the research materials as “number”. Defendant 1 suggested that the examination criteria should be strengthened to add 150% or more of the research materials related to historical education to the standards for “number” of the research materials published (40%). The above proposal was corrected through the academic conference and finally corrected, and decided at least 60% of the research materials published at least 40% of the research materials published (candidate) as “number” in the major materials published, and at least 10% of the research materials published at least 10% of the research materials published at least.

④ On October 15, 2003, ○○ School opened the Committee for the Management of Teachers’ Public Bonds and established the revised proposal as is, and the paper was finally selected as a professor of the Social Education Department and a professor of the said ○○ School on November 26, 2003, even if the relevant academic journal was lost prior to the determination as a candidate for the academic journal. As a result, Defendant 2 submitted two copies including a thesis for the examination of the contents of the study, which was written into “(title 2 omitted)” on November 5, 2003, including a thesis related to the historical education, and applied for the social education and teaching public bonds of the said ○○ School. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18173, Nov. 26, 2003>

B. Determination

(1) As examined in the above facts, Defendant 2, who had no friendship with each other from the date of the public announcement of the professor's public bonds as the applicants for the above examination, made a telephone contact several times from the date of the public announcement of the public bonds of professors to the date of the public announcement of successful applicants. In the process, Defendant 2 notified the above Defendant 1 of his thesis performance to the above Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 added a thesis related to history education to "(title 1 omitted)" which is the place of academic publication under the above Defendant 1's initiative, and the above Defendant 1 proposed an amendment of the standard of examination to strengthen the number of requirements based on the same results as that of the above Defendant 2's thesis and eventually led the above Defendant 2 to the amendment of the standard of examination to the favorable direction to the above Defendant 2. In full view of the above facts that the above Defendant 2 obtained the highest score in the public bonds, and eventually passed the public bonds, the Defendants' series of acts in advance pursuant to the revised standard of examination, and thus, the Defendants' assertion is insufficient.

(2) Meanwhile, in full view of the fact that Defendant 2’s additional posted on Defendant 2’s “(name 1 omitted)” was evaluated not only as a major thesis publication, but also as a thesis subject to the examination of the content of research, Defendant 2 was able to prepare for obtaining “the number” in the thesis performance according to the examination criteria which was known in advance to other applicants, and Defendant 2 was finally able to obtain “the number” and applied for the teaching public bonds after meeting the requirements of “number” as alleged by the Defendants, even though it is recognized that Defendant 2 was employed as a professor even without such series of acts as alleged by the Defendants, Defendant 2’s act interfered with the duties of fair evaluation of teaching public bonds by the members of the faculty public bonds management committee, and therefore, the lower judgment’s assertion that there was error in the misapprehension

3. Determination of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor

A. As to Defendant 1

In light of the fact that the above Defendant was responsible for preventing teaching public bonds from being carried out in a fair and transparent manner as a member of the Teachers' Public Bonds Management Committee at the same time with social education and education, and that, rather, he was responsible for such efforts, he was actually involved in the instant crime by taking advantage of his position, and that he denied the instant criminal facts up to the trial. However, it cannot be deemed that the nature of the crime is somewhat weak in light of all the conditions that serve as the basis for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, and family relationship, including the fact that the Defendant was a primary offender who has no criminal record and the status of a public official is lost due to the instant case.

B. As to Defendant 2

Although the above defendant's act should be criticized, the crime of this case is hard to occur without the defendant's leading intervention, and the degree of the crime of this case is relatively minor and there are reasonable grounds to consider that the crime of this case is caused to such a crime. The above defendant has received excellent evaluation in the evaluation criteria other than the result of the publication of this paper, and even if he applied for the professors public bonds, it is likely to be employed as professors, considering all the conditions that form the basis for sentencing specified in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment and criminal records, it is recognized that the punishment of the court below against the defendant is too inappropriate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by Defendant 1 and the prosecutor are without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the appeal by Defendant 2 is well-grounded, the part of the judgment below against Defendant 2 is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by Defendant 2 is again decided as follows.

Articles 137 and 30 (Selection of Fine)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Justices Kang Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)