Uttering of an investigation document (a recognized criminal fact-finding document);

use of forged evidence (the name of a modified crime)

use of evidence, obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, country

violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the meeting

Special Prosecutor Park Jong-dae, Dispatching Prosecutor the highest order of the Dispatching Prosecutor, Promotion (Public Trial)

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of obstruction of the performance of justice is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be publicly notified.

"2017, 49"

The defendant is the professor of the convergence content department at the new industry convergence university located in Seoul E University (hereinafter referred to as the "F Institute").

1. Interference with business;

I (as of February 25, 2014, the title of H, known as the non-line office of the president of G, exercised significant influence on the basis of the friendly relationship with the president, and I (as of June 18, 2015, the title of H "J") and H (as of June 25, 2015, the title of H "L") of his/her female, entered the GF Health Science University (as of March 2016, the new industrial convergence university was reconvened to the new industry convergence university) and did not attend the course and was subject to an academic instruction during the first semester of 2015. From the end of 2015 to the end of 2016, K would have received credits even if K did not attend the course of lectures.

At around March 4, 2016, the Defendant heard the words "K's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son

In this regard, the Defendant, at the end of June 2016, entered the F Company into the F Company as the Defendant’s assistant 0, P, the number of absence hours indicated as “0.0” into the F Company’s school affairs management system, and did not change the number of absence hours to actual absence hours, and did not enter the relevant sexual data, such as output, into the F Company’s school affairs management system, etc., and submitted the F Company’s school affairs team, etc. to the Defendant 0, P, as if he participated in the offline special lecture, and applied for the offline weather examination.

Accordingly, in collusion with M, I, and K, the Defendant interfered with the school management work of the F. M, I, and K by fraudulent means.

2. A teacher who forges private documents.

around October 2016, the Defendant: (a) was scheduled to take disciplinary action against the Defendant and file an accusation with the investigative agency, etc. on Franchisium; (b) the prosecution was under investigation; (c) the Franchisium Special Audit and Inspection Committee of the Franchisium on the suspicion (the audit period from October 24, 2016 to December 1, 2016) and the Ministry of Education’s special case audit and inspection (the audit period from October 15, 2016 to November 15, 2016). In order to conceal the fact that K granted illegal credits, as prescribed in paragraph (1), the Defendant instructed P, who is the assistant of the Defendant, and P, to prepare an answer to the examination proposal in the name of K, as if he/she had dead the end of the “NN subjects”.

At that time, 000 F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F., one copy of the F. F. F. F. F. F. E. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F., F.C. F. F. F. F.

3. A teacher who exhibits a falsified investigation document;

On October 2016, the Defendant had a contact with FJ to the effect that “the submission of relevant materials is different because he/she requires the submission of sexual calculation data, such as the FJ personnel participation program and school administration preference program, and the investigation is being conducted by the prosecution, through the FJ self-inspection and the audit by the Ministry of Education, and the procedures for the disciplinary action and accusation to the Defendant against the Defendant through the audit by the Ministry of Education.” As the Defendant had a contact to the effect that “the submission of relevant materials is different because he/she is demanded by the FJ personnel and the person in charge of the administrative office of the New Industry Convergence University, S and the Ministry of Education,” such as the sexual calculation data related to K, attendance recognition data, and response sheet, etc., for the purpose of submitting the Defendant’s evidence as to criminal or disciplinary cases against the Defendant, the Defendant ordered the FJ personnel P, who is the assistant of the K, to submit as evidence.

P, around the 18th day of the same month, by submitting one copy of the answer sheet to the weather examination in the name of K in accordance with the above order of the defendant, to the affiliated T&T belonging to the F&T office that is aware of the forgery, and around that time, the F&T officials in charge of the F&T, such as T, etc., submit it as evidence to the school juristic person S auditors and U, etc. who are aware of the forgery.

Accordingly, the Defendant instigated P to exercise one copy of the oral test answer sheet, which is a private document forged as above.

"2017 Highly 190"

The defendant adopted the Special Committee on the Investigation of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea(hereinafter referred to as the "Special Committee on the Investigation of the National Assembly") as a witness of the relevant suspicion, such as admission to K and management of school affairs, etc. Around that time, the defendant was asked to attend a hearing of the investigation of the state affairs held in X 10:00 National Assembly Library 245 (Chapter 3) by the chairperson of the National Special Committee on the Investigation of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not appear as a witness in the above-mentioned national special hearing on the ground that he was in the process of health problems and investigation, such as X-level stress disorder and the unknown high blood pressure.

Accordingly, the defendant was absent from the national special hearing without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

"2017, 49"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. To record some of the statements in the record of examination of the witness against the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused and M (each prosecutor's office of the accused and M);

1. Some statements in written questions and answers by the Ministry of Education concerning M;

1. Each prosecutor's statement made to 0, P,O (2), Y, Z, T, AA (2), AB, and U;

1.0 and a statement in preparation of P;

1. Records of seizure (AC), list of seizure (Evidence Nos. 239, 240, hereinafter referred to as "Evidence List") (Evidence List Nos. 239, 240, hereinafter referred to as "Evidence List"), list of seizure (A, 250, 251), protocol of seizure (A Office), list of seizure (Evidence Nos. 63 and 64);

1. Investigative report (K's analysis report on school affairs information), investigation report (Adjustment of the details of all applications for registration during the period of KF attending school), investigation report (verification of the time when an application for registration of a suspect is confirmed by course of study in 2016), investigation report (verification of the submission, etc. of a grade table for subjects during the course of study in 2016 and the summer 1 semester in 2016, and the summer 2016), investigation report (verification of relevant joints, such as AD from among the seized pocket books of M and J W, etc.);

1. School regulations of the F University (amended on June 16, 16), school juristic persons’ S articles of incorporation (amended on July 11, 16), the organization of the F University, the rules on the implementation of school regulations of the F University, the rules on the performance of school regulations of the F University, the rules on the performance of school records of the F University, the printed materials of the F University website, and the rules on the delegation of authority;

1. One copy of a lecture plan, three copies of a request for investigation, "K sexual records," printed copies of a sexually modified log, the current status of giving physical special skills skills, and one-year lecture plan (N), NF University answer sheet (N, K), K-MOC online end-to-end examination draft, N sexual calculation data, N performance calculation data, NF performance calculation statement, NFF special lecture attendance book, NNF-end special lecture attendance book, N (former L), and data concerning the current status of application for taking lectures of K (Korean).

1. Department of K Study (before measures are taken as a result of the special study of education), eight copies for each subject, eight copies for attendance, eight copies for lectures, six copies for basic data for giving credits, six copies for basic data for giving credits, six copies for 2016, and "a letter of public notice of school administration warning," written notification of school administration warning student, and written notification of school administration warning student's parents;

1. A copy of the answer sheet (N, K), K high school, and one copy of the test answer sheet prepared and submitted in addition to 0, one copy of the test answer sheet prepared and submitted at the time of investigating the witness, and one copy of the e-mail;

1. One e-mail sent by 0 to A and P; one e-mail; one e-mail sent by 0 to A and P; one e-mail; one e-mail sent by 0 to A and P; one e-mail; and each e-mail;

An official document requesting confirmation materials, a document verifying and verifying the facts related to the selection and operation of the Fant Selection and Educational Affairs, a notice of a case investigation, a public notice of a request for investigation data, and a public notice of a request for special audit;

1. One copy of the relevant part in the pocket book;

1. The currency content, currency content, from November 27, 2015 to 12,19.

1. The current status of entry and departure of each individual (L, K) and the current status of entry and departure of each individual (I) 2017, 190;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A copy of the accusation, a copy of the written request for witness attendance, or a copy of the reason for non-appearance;

1. A copy of a certificate of delivery, a copy of a diagnosis, a certificate of medical records (A), a e-mail list, and a copy of e-mail;

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. As to the crime of interference with business

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The assertion that the crime of interference with business was not established

① Since the duties of evaluating K’s sexual evaluation are the duties of the Defendant, a professor in charge, the “other person’s business” cannot be deemed to be “the duties.” ② Since the subjects are assessed only on passing or failure to pass the course, it is irrelevant to the completion of the school affairs team’s school affairs, the selection of honorary students, and the school team is limited to mechanical processing without any separate determination as to the results of the sexual evaluation conducted by the Defendant, and thus, the act of unreasonably calculating K’s sexual performance and submitting relevant materials to the school affairs team does not constitute “defensive act or disposition,” and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was “Interference with the business.”

2) The defendant and I or K's assertion that the defendant did not have a public recruitment relationship

Although the Defendant intended to accept the Defendant’s request for the “understanding the direction of M,” it is difficult to see that the Defendant is in a conspiracy relationship with I, K, and the Defendant is in the crime of interference with business, since I and K merely referred to the purport that “On-line lectures cannot be involved by the Defendant, and should be considered to be heard by the Defendant,” and there was no mentioning that I would give rise to sexual consideration through a third party. In fact, I would like to proceed to online lectures through a third party.

B. The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, including facts acknowledged.

1) Sexual and attendance-related regulations, etc.

A) School Foundation S (President AF) is a school foundation under the Private School Act established for the purpose of conducting early childhood education based on the basic ideology of education of the Republic of Korea based on the spirit of early childhood education (Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Private School Act), which is a private school foundation (Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Private School Act), the school foundation S Articles of Incorporation (hereinafter “Articles of Incorporation”) and FF school regulations (hereinafter “school regulations”) prescribe basic matters concerning the organization, curriculum, etc. of F representative (Articles 19 and 21(1) of the Higher Education Act).

B) The FJ has a basic institution, central administrative agency, president’s subordinate agency, university, etc. according to the FJ organization (hereinafter “FF organization”); as a basic institution, the president, etc. as a central administrative agency, the Ministry of Education, Science, etc. as a central administrative agency, the President’s subordinate agency as the president, and each university as a new industry convergence university, etc. (Article 3).

C) The president represents the FF and takes overall control of the overall school affairs (Article 4); the Department of School Affairs shall have the Minister and the Minister shall take charge of the school administration and the personnel administration of teachers under the order of the president (Articles 22 and 24). The School Team shall take charge of the completion, promotion, graduation-related affairs, academic management, recognition of credits, management of credits, etc. (Article 26).

D) The FFF’s new industrial convergence university consists of one faculty (the sports science department: the sports science department, the global sports industry department), and five departments (the convergence content department, the clothing industry department, the international office department, the food nutrition department, and the convergence health department). The new industrial convergence university has a dean (M), who is a representative, shall take charge of the relevant school affairs under the order of the president, and has a faculty president and a faculty director (the head of the convergence content department by the defendant) in a faculty, respectively, shall take charge of school administration plans, the organization of curricula, the assignment of professors in the curriculum, the learning and guidance of students, and the administration office that performs various administrative affairs under the orders of the dean.

E) According to Article 40(1) of the school regulations, where a student fails to attend a school for at least 1/6 of the class hours of a semester, the grade for the subject is referred to as “F.” In determining the grade, the relative evaluation (a grade shall not exceed 35%, A grade and B shall not exceed 70%, and C grade shall be at least 30%) (Article 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on the Regulations on the Implementation of the School Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of the School Regulations”)) shall apply (Article 5-2 of the Regulations on the Treatment of Sexual Records (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule”).

F) Article 21 of the Higher Education Act provides that “The completion of a course in a university shall be based on the grade point and credit system, etc.” Accordingly, F shall be based on the credits, and F shall operate a curriculum with a single class of more than 15 hours, and each credit shall be given a grade point (0 to 4.3) (Article 35 of the School Regulations), and “D- shall be given a grade point,” “F” shall be based on a fallen system (Article 39(1) of the School Regulations), and “F” shall be based on 129 credits (Article 39(1) of the School Regulations), barring any special circumstance, recognize the graduation of the students who have completed the prescribed course in the school regulations and completed the required course in a certain course, and shall be granted a bachelor’s degree (Articles 48(1) and 50(1)), while, in the case of a subject evaluated as having passed or failed to pass the course, it shall be included in the school regulations (Article 39(2) of the School Regulations).

G) If a student is absent from school or has not been present for at least three weeks without reporting (Article 28 of the School Regulations). If a student is absent from school for at least 1/6 of the class hours, the grade grade for the subject shall be F if the student fails to attend the school despite his/her application for enrollment (Article 40(1) and Article 46 of the School Regulations).

H) The president shall ensure that a person with poor academic records is organized (Article 28 of the School Regulations); if the student’s average academic record is less than 2.00, he/she shall be given special guidance, such as guidance professors (Article 41(1) of the School Regulations); if the student’s average academic record is less than 1.60, he/she shall be subject to a bachelor’s warning if he/she is given three consecutive times a bachelor’s degree program (Article 41(4) of the School Regulations). According to the average academic record at the end of a semester, the standards for acquisition or credits may be expanded or restricted (Article 45 of the School Regulations and Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the School Regulations), if the average academic record is less than 1.70 by the end of a semester (Article 41(6) of the School Regulations), and if the total academic record is less than 3.75, he/she may graduate from school (Article 47-3(1) of the School Regulations).

I) The professor in charge of each subject shall enter “AG” (hereinafter referred to as “ Q”)’s sexual grade (which shall conform to the criteria for evaluation by comparison), “marks,” and “number of class hours” (which shall be changed to 0.0, and which shall be changed to the actual number of class hours, and if the number of class hours is equal to 1/6 or more of the class hours, the class class shall be changed to F regardless of the input contents) into “AG” (hereinafter referred to as “B”), and make the student directly peruse and confirm the results within a fixed period (Article 7(1) of the Regulations), and a student who has an objection to the results shall file an objection with the professor in charge of the sexual objection period, and may not file an objection after the lapse of the fixed period (Article 7(2) of the Gender Regulation).

j) The professor in charge shall keep the data on the basis of sexual calculation for one year (Article 8 of the Gender Regulations), sign the results of the subject and the attendance book, submit them to the office of the department, report them to the director of the department, and confirm and sign the results of the subject and the attendance book for each subject reported to the director of the department, and submit them to the administrative office of the college, and the "degree table for the subject" among the administrative offices of the college shall be kept for three years (Article 8 of the Gender Regulations), and the "sexual table for the subject" shall be kept for three years (Article 8 of the Gender Regulations), and the subsequent school team shall keep the "sexual table for the subject" in fact (Article 9412 of the Special Regulations).

(k) A student may apply for the issuance of a sexual chart online or off-line ( through the Student Support Center), and in the case of an application for the issuance of online and off-line, a sexual chart shall be issued in the name of the last confirmation person. This shall be widely used as data that indicate the content of the subjects taken by the student concerned, including each subject taken by the student concerned, such as application, credits, academic scores, academic scores, and academic achievement.

(l) The Director General takes charge of the administration of the school affairs, school administration, and teachers of the Franc, under the order of the president, and the school team takes charge of all of the credits, grades, etc. of students (Article 26) as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(m) Meanwhile, the results of entry by the professor in charge into Q are classified and stored for each student, and are processed with affairs such as the implementation of school administration warnings as seen earlier based on the computerized data (in the event of implementing school administration warnings, the relevant student and his/her parents are sent under the name of the principal of school administration despite notifying the relevant student and his/her parents of the reason for the school administration warnings, the guidance professor’s sexual counseling and instruction for attending lectures, the possibility of three-time school administration notifications, and if credits and academic records are integrated for each semester, the relevant student’s expulsion, promotion, completion, graduation, etc. In the meantime, if a student’s objection is filed, the professor in charge may immediately apply for the correction of the results to the school team and directly enter the school administration only in the case of clerical error (Article 36 of the Regulations on the Implementation of School Regulations, Article 7(3) of the Sexual Regulations).

2) Circumstances such as application for attending the subject of the instant case and granting of academic records

A) Around February 2016 through March 3, 2016, 6 subjects including “N” (hereinafter referred to as “the subject of this case”) in charge of the Defendant were applied for a course of study in the first semester of K in 2016. 6) MOC is a course consisting of classes for all people without limitation on the number of students, and for the purpose of learning as defined in the web-based. K-MOC refers to a Korean-type online publication course developed by the National Institute for Lifelong Education.

B) One of the subjects in this case, K-MOC, is three credits, the object of which is “AH”, and is three credits, the object of which is “AH.”

C) 0) On March 2015, P entered a graduate school of the convergence content department and worked as K-MOC-related teaching assistants from 2015 to 2015, and even during 2016, P had the Defendant worked as teaching assistants for the subject of the instant case in which the Defendant is in charge.

D) In order to acquire credits, 276 students in the instant subject may attend online on the K-MOC Internet website (htp://www. www.kmmoc. r/) by up to 2,700 students in the FF course and 2,700 students free of charge, regardless of the acquisition of credits. However, it was planned that the offline special lectures and the offline weather tests will be conducted once each.

E) Through a lecture plan, the Defendant evaluated the final score by allocating it to 50% of the total score of 100, 15% of the attendance score of the offline, and 35% of the early written examination score of the offline, and determined that the Defendant constitutes S (qualified) if he/she acquires a total of 70 points or more. [A+(sexual score 4.3) to F (sexual score 4.3) to F (sexual score 0), not the grade grade but the grade grade of S (qualified) or U (unqualified). Accordingly, the sexual evaluation process of the subject of this case was scheduled to be carried out as follows.

(1) The FOC Center shall process students' online attending lectures, the results of online interim examinations, etc. by computer processing them, organize MFC scores acquired by students around the end of each semester into X-cell files, and deliver them to the defendant who is the professor in charge, by arranging them as X-cell files. If MOC scores delivered by the MOC Center are at least 60 points, the students concerned shall obtain all 50 points (50% out of 100 points out of the total points) assigned to online attending lectures, and if MOC scores are at least 60 points, the students shall obtain 50 points out of 100 points.

(2) The defendant confirms the attendance of the students on the offline special lecture, and marks the answer sheet submitted on the offline written examination, to calculate the number of students present on the offline special lecture and the offline written examination.

(3) The defendant finally evaluates the results of the attending class by S or U, on the basis of the sum of the attendance points (0 points or 50 points) and the early written examination points (0 to 35 points) on the off-line, the defendant shall evaluate the results of the students by 70 points in the attendance of the off-line special class (0 points or 50 points in the absence).

F) On April 1, 2016, the Defendant implemented the off-line special lecture, and 49 persons, including K, were absent. In addition, on June 11, 2016, the Defendant conducted the off-line weather test (A type), and conducted an additional off-line weather test (B type and C type) twice again on June 11, 2016 and on June 14, 2016 for students who cannot take the test. K was absent from all on the off-time weather test, which is the three off-time off-line.

G) Meanwhile, Al entered K’s ID and password, and applied for online intermediate examinations on behalf of K, and applied for online intermediate examinations, and MOC scores verified and allocated in the name of K at the MOC center was 85 points (at least 60 points, online class scores are 50 points).

H) During the first semester of 2016, the Defendant instructed P to the effect that K s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

(i) On June 26, 2016, the O and P had access to the Defendant’s ID and Q with the Defendant’s shoulder, and did not obtain more than 70 points that K passed, but did not confirm online lecture scores, but did not change the time of absence due to the Defendant’s instructions. At that time, the Defendant reported the result of the Defendant’s success in K, and confirmed whether the Defendant was well-written.

(j) In addition, O, P submitted to K the same day a "sexualS" list of the subjects on June 26, 2016, stating "0.0 of the number of absence hours", and on the other hand, the defendant's seal is affixed as the professor in charge and the director of the department in charge.8) On the other hand, among the total 276 students who participated in the subject of this case for the purpose of acquiring credits, the result of passing the course to 250 students, and the result of passing the course to 26 students, respectively.

C. Judgment on the non-existence of the crime of interference with business

1) Relevant legal principles

The object of the crime of interference with business is another person’s business. Here, a natural person other than an offender, legal entity, and non-legal entity refers to a natural person other than an offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6404, Dec. 27, 2007). Meanwhile, in the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, “defensive means” refers to the act of causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 2013).

In addition, in the crime of interference with business, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of the purpose of the interference with business or the planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or predictability of causing the consequence that his/her own act would interfere with another person’s business, and its recognition or prediction is not only definite but also definite, so-called willful negligence is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201253475, Jan. 31, 2013). In addition, the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if it does not require the actual occurrence of the result of the interference with business, and if there is a risk of causing the interference with business, rather than in itself, even if the propriety or fairness of business is hindered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1721, Jan. 17, 2008; 2009Do4772, Sept. 10, 2009).

2) Determination

A) Whether the business interfered with by the defendant is "other person's business"

6. The above facts and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court: ① Whether or not there is "credit" evaluated by a professor in charge of sexual studies is not only a unit of study at a university, but also a basis for recognition of credits for subjects of higher education, the total number of credits acquired, etc.; ② Matters concerning the attendance of the subjects for which the application is made can be determined not only by academic records but also by academic records; ③ The results evaluated by the professor in charge are clearly based on the management of academic records of the university, such as graduation, completion, expulsion, scholarship, school administration, school affairs, and school affairs of the university, and the overall management of academic records and records, such as the appointment and management of academic records, and the overall management of academic records and records, are clearly prescribed as the basis for the management of academic records and records by the professor in charge; ④ The evaluation of academic records and records by the professor in charge as well as by the President in charge of academic records and records, and ④ The evaluation and management of academic records and records by the professor in charge.

B) Whether the crime of interference with business constitutes a fraudulent scheme

(1) The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the Defendant’s own score 50 points out of the online number of lectures, and the remainder of the 50 points out of the off-line and the 70 points out of the off-line skill examination. K did not refuse to attend all the off-line special lectures and horses, and K did not notify the Defendant that there are reasons for recognizing the attendance of the off-line special lectures, or did not present evidentiary materials proving that the Defendant did not appear at the off-line instruction, in light of the above regulations, the Defendant did not finally failed to obtain some of the points assigned to the off-line instruction, such as additional tests or subjects, and that the Defendant did not obtain some of the points assigned to the off-line instruction, and that the Defendant did not have any reasonable ground for calculating the number of hours of attendance at the off-line instruction, even if the Defendant did not appear at the off-line instruction.

(2) In regard to this, the defendant thought that there was a kind of "gral practice for athletic professionals belonging to the sports science department" and argued that he passed the examination by respecting it. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it cannot be deemed that there was an explicit or implied agreement among professors about "gral consideration for athletic professionals" within the FJ, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(A) The Defendant voluntarily stated to the effect that even if there are minor problems due to attendance and a very sensitive to sexual intercourses, the professor in charge may raise a strong objection and fair and equitable trial, and the same purport was changed in this court.

(B) Contents of K’s academic achievements in 2015 and 2016 are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

Indeed, K’s school affairs information in the first semester of 2015, seven subjects among the total eight subjects were included in F grade, D-sexual grade in the first class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of

(C) Furthermore, among the subjects for which an application was filed for the first semester in 2015, the number of professors belonging to the Ministry of Sports and Science reaches four 'one-year seminars (AY), AL (BA), AM (BC, etc.), and Q (ABC). In light of the fact that K had received the F grade for all 3 subjects except for AL, it is difficult to see that the sports science department to which an athletic specialist belongs has gone through the above practice.

(D) There is no evidence to acknowledge that there exists an explicit and implied agreement among the professors on the “school affairs for athletic professionals” inside the sports science department, and rather, there is no need to find any uniform practice to regard the “school affairs management cases of professors in charge of each subject” as dependent on the individual judgment or inclinations of professors in charge of each subject, and it is difficult to find out the case of school affairs management. For this reason, there is an opinion suggesting that a certain standard should be stipulated among the professors, and the school regulations and sexual regulations were amended on June 16, 2016 as stated in [Attachment Table 1], but the amended school regulations also provide that the relevant professor should determine whether a student who was absent should be present at least if he/she submits evidentiary materials proving the grounds for his/her attendance, as seen earlier.

(E) Meanwhile, in the process of the amendment of the school regulations as above, it is discussed at the faculty meeting of the Ministry of Sports and Tourism in the course of the amendment of the school regulations as seen earlier, and then stated, on March 11, 2016, that “the school affairs management plan (hereinafter referred to as “the school affairs management plan”) for the outstanding skills in the sports science department sent in sequence to the Minister of BR Planning and the Minister of Z school affairs on March 11, 2016,” “the school affairs management plan for the outstanding skills in the sports science department” (hereinafter referred to as “the 1774 pages”) may be approved as the submission of official documents issued by the organization, and the interim examination and the final examination may be substituted with various tasks of the faculty discretion in charge.” This is not significantly different from the school regulations.

C) Whether it interferes with the school management work of the Director General;

The above facts and the following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court. The person in charge of the school register team of the school register due to the defendant's deceptive act did not recognize the fact that K actually should have received the results of failure to pass the subject of this case, and without properly recognizing the fact that K had received the results of passing the subject of this case, K applied for the course of this case in the first semester of 2016, and obtained three credits by being given the results of academic achievement corresponding to the evaluation factors prepared by the defendant who is the professor in charge. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that K had properly processed a number of affairs, such as calculating the end credits of the semester upon obtaining three credits from the subject of passing the subject of this case and properly obtained three credits from the other subject of this case. In light of the above premise that K should have completed the course of this case and have completed the course of this case, it cannot be seen that it did not have any error in the management of the defendant's school register.

D) Sub-determination

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel that the crime of interference with business is not established is rejected.

D. Determination as to the failure to establish a public contest relationship with the Defendant I and K

1) Relevant legal principles

Joint implementation of a crime by an conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment of the elements of a crime by all accomplices. It is also possible to cooperate with the accomplices performing the act to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether such act is determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, intent to control the crime, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). The conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process the crime and realize the crime. Thus, if a combination of opinions is made either successively or implicitly through the whole process, it is established under a conspiracy relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011).

2) Determination

Considering the above facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the defendant did not gather together at the same time and place, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was a conspiracy relationship due to the combination of doctors with regard to the “the recognition of K’s attendance,” “the recognition of sexual preference in the evaluation,” and “the academic preference in the evaluation,” in order and implicitly. Accordingly, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

(A) After visits from I and K, the implementation of the Defendant’s special preference to school affairs

(1) The Defendant stated in this Court that “(I and K) and immediately after this Court, I tried to see the school principal and to the extent that I would like to hear the remarks of the principal and to the extent that I would like to do so. (I and K talk to the assistant, and I would like to talk when I would like to see the following results). I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would attend the school of K and I would well see the credits of I would attend the school of K, and I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to know that I would like to give an instruction to realize this in accordance with the request at a very close time after receiving M’s request.

(2) Although there was no specific public offering or consultation on the "special benefits for school affairs" in the place where the Defendant dividess I, K and the conversation in his own laboratory, the Defendant accepted the "special benefits for school affairs" and ordered 0 teaching assistants who handle all the affairs of the instant subject for the Defendant to deliver the request for the "special benefits for school affairs" to 0 teaching assistants who handle the affairs of the instant subject for the Defendant, and then issued the request for the "special benefits for school affairs" during the first semester of 2016 and immediately after the end of June 2016, and confirmed the entry of the "special benefits for school affairs" into 0 and P. At least at the time when the Defendant directed 'special benefits for school affairs' to us, K and 'special benefits for school affairs.

(3) Furthermore, the Defendant appears to have decided to grant K a non-conditional result regardless of K’s online taking courses or MOC scores, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no combination of doctors solely on the ground that I took part in online taking courses through a third party.

B) The establishment of a successive public contest relationship through M

(1) In this Court, the Defendant stated in this Court that “The Defendant would not have received a request from the dean for convenience of the credits and attendance of a specific student for about 22 years working for the FF. The Speaker would not be presumed to have any special relationship with H and his family. It was the first time to receive the request from the dean, and the parents would have found the parents' credits for their children. It was also the first time to say that the Defendant would have a burden on H’s father and wife. The Defendant received the request for the “school preferential benefits” three times from M on April 2016, and the Defendant’s affiliation was changed to a new industrial convergence university, and it was not easy to refuse the above request from the dean M, which is the head of the school who may exercise absolute influence on the promotion, personnel management, etc. at the time of the expiration of one month.”

(2) M receives a request from I.K for the "the academic preference to the subject of this case", and M received the request from the defendant, and as long as the defendant accepted this request, M is also recognized as a series of doctors with I and K through mediation.

2. As to the crime of forging private documents

A. Summary of the assertion

One copy of the answer sheet in the name of K in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ruling (hereinafter referred to as "the answer sheet in this case") does not correspond to "private documents concerning certification of facts", and even if so, constitutes private documents.

Even if it is prepared by K's request or at least implied and presumed consent for preparation, the crime of forging private documents is not established.

B. Determination as to whether “a certificate of fact” constitutes a private document

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of forging a private document is established when the form and appearance to the extent that the nominal owner can regard it as a document genuinely prepared by the nominal owner is sufficient to mislead the general public into the authentic private document of the nominal owner. It does not necessarily require the signature or seal of the person who prepared the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1674, May 10, 207). In addition, a private document concerning a certificate of fact includes a document other than a document concerning rights and duties and includes a document certifying facts in law or social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4819, Feb. 11, 200).

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the court lawfully adopted and examined evidence, i.e., the name of the Examination subject: N; R. sports science and education number: 10 as the result of the examination at the university: the answer note at the bar; (2) the investigative point at the bar; (3) the candidate at the bar; (4) the candidate at the bar; (8) the applicant at the bar; (1) the applicant at the bar of the examination at the bar; and (4) the applicant at the bar of the examination at the bar of the examination at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this case; (3) the applicant at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this case; (4) the applicant at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this examination; (3) the applicant at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this examination at the bar of this case at the bar of this case at the bar of this examination; (4) the answer of this case at bar of this case at the bar of this case at bar of this case.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and the defense counsel that the answer of this case does not constitute private documents is rejected.

C. Determination as to K's request or implied acceptance

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of forgery or alteration of a private document refers to the preparation by a person who is not authorized to prepare and make a document in the name of another person. Therefore, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in preparing and amending the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document if the nominal owner did not have the real consent of the nominal owner at the time of the act, but if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act in full view of all objective circumstances at the time of the act, the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document is presumed not to be established. However, if the nominal owner knew of the fact without the explicit consent or consent of the nominal owner, it cannot be concluded that the consent was presumed to have been obtained solely on the basis that the nominal owner anticipated or predicted that the nominal owner consented to the preparation of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do987, Apr. 10, 2008; 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 2011).

2) Determination

A) Whether K's explicit request or implied acceptance is recognized

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that K explicitly requested or impliedly consented to the preparation of the answer sheet of this case, this part of the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is rejected.

B) Whether K's constructive acceptance is recognized

(1) First of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to the time when the Defendant’s direction prepared the answer sheet in this case, the Defendant should include the health room and P as a laboratory on October 1, 2016, and the Defendant should pay it to the educational department’s auditor.

In addition, since there is no answer sheet, there is no answer sheet, and there is no attendance point, the attendance point is also the 50 points, and the 10 point is the 15 point, and the 70 point is the cryp test is the cryp (Pass) at least 10 points, and the cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cryp-type cry-type cryp-type cry-type cryp-type c.

(2) Next, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the following facts are acknowledged as to the objective circumstances at the time of the formation of the answer site of this case around October 2016.

(A) From October 2016, the answer sheet of this case was prepared, around 2016, about 3-4 months after the date of completion of the submission of printed materials related to Q Q’s sexual input and the submission of printed materials ( June 26, 2016).

(B) On June 2016, K had been staying in a foreign country, which was conducted by the Rodra Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon Madon and continued to stay abroad since August 2016.

(C) From the end of September 2016, the National Assembly Education, Culture and Tourism Tourism Committee's inspection of the state administration of the National Assembly on September 28, 2016, the members of the National Assembly pointed out that the FFF branch's entry of the FF branch in relation to the matters under its jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, the members of the National Assembly, pointed out the preferential suspicion in the process of submitting the tasks, and that BV would hear the explanations of the FF branch and withdraw the measures. As a result of the inspection of the state administration, the Ministry of Education's request for a special audit on the suspicion of entry, admission, revision of school regulations, school life, replacement of guidance professors, etc. was determined.

(D) On September 29, 2016, F announced a series of statements of harm on the suspicion of preferential treatment, including that “F selected sports special reporters according to the definite recruitment outline and the entrance conditions, and undergone legitimate procedures even the replacement of guidance professors.”

(E) On October 4, 2016, the Ministry of Education requested the FF President to submit data to confirm and explain the facts about the selection of students and the operation of school affairs in relation to the issues raised in the press and the inspection of the state administration.

(F) On October 5, 2016, the head of the school team Twit Team sent e-mail that requested the Defendant to send e-mail to the Defendant “the request for K Data related to the national sense” and “the present status of attendance and the grounds for attendance, the present status of sexual grant, and the grounds for sexual grant,” and the Defendant sent the above e-mail to O and P on the same day.

(G) On October 12, 2016, AE affiliated with the Administrative Office of the New Industry Convergence University sent e-mail the Defendant “matters to be verified by the Ministry of Education regarding the grant of grade for subjects taken by K,” and the Defendant sent the above e-mail to 0 on the same day.

(h) On October 18, 2016, AE sent the e-mail requesting that the Defendant submit all of the data for sexual calculation data for each subject “the Defendant received a request from a school juristic person”, and T sent the e-mail requesting that the Defendant submit the original copy of the K’s test site and the answer site to submit the audit room on the same day.

(i) On October 21, 2016, the Ministry of Education notified the president of the FJ to conduct an investigation into the matters related to athletic qualification, and requested the submission of research data. On October 28, 2016, the Ministry of Education decided to conduct an audit into a special case on the issue of ‘the suspicion of the special preference of the academic qualification, such as the suspicion of the participation of the FJ in the athletic qualification test and the granting of attendance and credits, etc.' as a result of the written investigation conducted on October 28, 2016. The Ministry of Education conducted an audit by inserting the total number of 15 persons from November 10, 2016 to November 15, 2016.

(j) Meanwhile, the school foundation S decided to organize a "Special Audit Committee on Admission to Sports Special Skills and School Affairs" and to conduct its own audit from October 2016 to December 1, 2016.

(k) On November 10, 2016, the defendant stated that "I would not intervene in the special audit of the Ministry of Education in the preference to K's academic affairs," and "I would like to think that I would have applied for the examination." On November 23, 2016, if I knew that there was an agency test in the prosecutor's investigation, I would have been absolutely not paid if I would like to know that there was an agency test."

(l) After the O and P stated the facts related to the preparation of the answer sheet of this case in the special inspection investigation, the Defendant was suspected of forging the private document. After that, the Defendant instigated the Defendant to prepare the answer sheet of this case in contingency to the instant court until the instant court was established, and the Defendant stated to the effect that there was a purpose to gather the criticism and responsibility of the students enrolled in the FJ and graduates from the Republic of Korea.

(3) The following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had been present at the time of the above recognition, and if the preparation of the answer site was conducted at the time of the final grade admission to the subject of this case, it is hard to conclude that the Defendant had been present at the time of the above recognition, and it is hard to conclude that the Defendant had been present at the time of the above recognition as to the Defendant's assertion that it was hard to recognize that there was a false public opinion as to the Defendant's non-public opinion as well as the fact that it was difficult to recognize that there was a false public opinion as to the Defendant's non-public opinion for the first time after the completion of the final grade evaluation as to the subject of this case and that it was difficult to recognize that there was a false public opinion as to the Defendant's non-public opinion as to the Defendant's non-public opinion of this case, as well as the fact that the Defendant had been present at the time of his allegation that it was difficult to recognize that there was a false public opinion as to the Defendant's public opinion about the issue of this case.

(4) Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the claim by the defendant and his defense counsel that the defendant and his defense counsel did not constitute a "scambation" with K's constructive consent

3. As to the violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly

A. Summary of the assertion

Since it is unclear the time to receive a summons of the National Assembly by the defendant, and it is not clearly proved that the defendant was served seven days before the date X, the date of the request for appearance, the defendant does not constitute a violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. in the National Assembly even though he/she was absent in

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 5 (1) of the former Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly (amended by Act No. 14377, Dec. 16, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly") provides that "the plenary session or a committee (including a subcommittee or squad organized for the inspection or investigation of the state administration) shall request a report or submission of documents, etc. under this Act, or a request for appearance of a witness, appraiser, or reference under this Act shall be issued by the Speaker in the case of the plenary session, and in the case of the committee, by the chairman in the case of the committee, the request under paragraph (1) shall be served by the chairman in the case of the committee, or by the chairman in the case of the committee."

Article 5(4) of the former Act on Testimony and Appraisal of National Assembly shall be construed as a mandatory provision to be observed in light of the form of provision, restriction on a witness due to his/her attendance, necessity for preparing answer materials, strict punishment in the event of a violation, etc. Therefore, a request for a witness who fails to comply with the relevant service period shall not be punished pursuant to Article 12(1) of the former Act on Testimony and Appraisal of National Assembly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5531, Dec. 27, 2001).

2) Determination as to lawful service

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following facts are acknowledged.

(1) According to the resolution of the fifth committee of the 5th committee of the W Investigation Special Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Committee on the Investigation of International Affairs") the defendant adopted the defendant as a witness of the investigation hearing to issue a request for attendance of a witness in the name of the chairman of the National Investigation Special Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "request for appearance of this case").

(2) The instant summons was delivered to the registered mail consisting of “Registration No. BW,” the recipient’s residence and name FX 401 A, and the certificate of delivery was written that CB 09:41 and that the company partner fee was received.

(3) At around 13:56 on the same day, the e-mail account (Z) of the Defendant’s e-mail, the e-mail sent by the Professor National Assembly to the Professor, and then, the e-mail was sent to the Professor of the Department of Contents and Administration. The e-mail was sent to the Professor of the Department of Contents and Administration, and the e-mail was received at around 14:07 on the same day as the above e-mail was received. BY had found the Defendant’s laboratory at the latest on the same day and delivered the Defendant’s summons.

(4) A copy of the medical certificate and medical record certificate issued by the CA was attached to the reason for non-existence ofCCs, which was prepared and submitted by the Defendant to the effect that it is difficult for him to testify on the national characteristics of the nation, and the date of issuance of the above medical certificate and medical record is both CB.

B) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was lawfully served the summons of this case 'CB', and the service date of the above summons of the witness is clear that the defendant was seven days before the date X, a request for appearance, was made to the defendant.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion that the defendant did not legally receive the witness's summons seven days before the date of the request for attendance of the witness is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 314(1) and 313 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14757, Mar. 21, 2017); Articles 231 and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of a assistant teacher for private documents); Articles 234 of the Criminal Act; Articles 231 and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of an assistant teacher for private documents); Articles 12(1) of the former Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly (amended by Act No. 14757, Mar. 21, 2017);

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the most severe crime of interference with business)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to seven years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: An offense of forging a private document;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Document)

【Special Esponsor ] Teachers (Aggravated Elements) for the Commander

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 1 year to 3 years of imprisonment

* In relation to the crime of utteringing a private document, if a person who forged a private document uses a forged document, he/she shall not be treated as a majority crime, but shall be treated as a sentencing factor only.

(b) Group 1 crime: Interference with business.

[Determination of Types] 1 (Interference with Business) interference;

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and 6 months;

(c) At least one year of imprisonment with labor for applying the standards for handling multiple crimes (the lower limit of the scope of sentence in accordance with the sentencing criteria shall apply to each of the above crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and a violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly for which no sentencing criteria are set;

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence; and

Although the Defendant is a university professor who is required to be a Flux of the general public as well as college students of the society and has a strict higher education and justice, the Defendant decided to allow a specific student to attend a school and make a false evaluation of his achievements from the early middle of a semester to be present at the Flux of the semester, and to conduct the management of school affairs with respect to his and her reputation, the Defendant violated the fairness and appropriateness of Flux of the school administration by entering relevant information, such as false grades, into the Flux of the semester, and submitting relevant data to the Flux of the school administration. Furthermore, the Defendant’s crime of this case is serious concern as to whether the procedure and system for fair and fair evaluation are not collapsed in universities due to other external factors than the students’ practical ability, and the overall spirit of society has increased.It is difficult to say that the interest in educational heat and employment problems has been affected by university students, college students with a strong degree of school attendance, and the so-called Elux of the Flux of the Elux of the Women.

In addition, the defendant's behavior brought about the whole society by destroying the value of the "fairness" of the students who participated in his/her best course of study and expected to be fair evaluation by the defendant is not a way to receive compensation. In addition, the defendant ordered him/her who is difficult to receive his/her instructions to recognize his/her false appearance, evaluate his/her results, and use them as evidence by ordering him/her to use them as evidence. The result that the defendant's behavior itself brought about is considerably significant and the circumstances after that is not sufficient to commit such crime. The above circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the Defendant: (a) expressed his previous appearance in the instant case; (b) led to the confession of his crime on behalf of his assistant to the present court; (c) expressed his intention that he had been aware of his wrong during the long-term detention period; and (d) had been aware of his intention that he would be responsible for harming the reputation of the Fran who has been dedicated to more than 20 years.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s subject is so-called “large evaluation”, which is neither a grade nor a grade, and did not have a significant impact on the part of the FJ’s academic achievement other than the acquisition of credits for the operation of educational affairs. Moreover, the Defendant did not seem to have caused extremely unfair outcomes by his/her act even though other students have passed by the Defendant’s act. The Defendant has a trace of attempting to pass the overall course of his/her students, not a specific student, and there are cases where his/her academic achievement somewhat falls short, and where his/her academic achievement falls short, and where his/her academic achievement is not easy compared to that of ordinary students, it is difficult for the Defendant to take into account certain parts of his/her academic achievement by exercising his/her discretion. Furthermore, the student’s academic achievement division, which was given special benefits, was difficult to view as having been given to the Defendant at the time of the audit and inspection by the Ministry of Education to have his/her own efforts to improve his/her academic performance or to have his/her personal credibility or interests at the time of his/her participation in the audit and inspection.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime of this case, means and result of the crime of this case, and various sentencing factors specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as the

The acquittal portion

1. As to the Counterfeiter of Evidence and the Counterfeiter of Evidence

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) The point of aiding and abetting evidence forgery

around October 2016, the Defendant was scheduled to take disciplinary action against the Defendant and file with the investigative agency, etc. through the Franchisium, K’s F. K’s participation in the school and school affairs management preference, and the investigation is being conducted by the prosecution, and the F.F. Educational Foundation Special Audit Committee of the suspected suspicion (from October 24, 2016 to December 1, 2016) and the special audit of the Ministry of Education (from October 31, 2016 to November 15, 2016) of the Ministry of Education (the audit period) and the special audit of the Ministry of Education (from October 31, 2016 to November 15, 2016). In order to conceal the fact that K granted illegal credits, the Defendant prepared a test report in the name of K, and made the test report in the name of K to make the test report in the name of K, the test report in the name of K, the test report in the name of K, and the sexual report report.

For this reason, O and P around that time prepared one copy of the oral test answer sheet stating 'N', 'sports science', 'R', 'K' in the university column and 'K' in the name column in accordance with the above direction of the defendant in F. P. In addition, as if K attends the meeting by means of making a false statement of 'V' on the oral test report (10 points)', 'V' on the off-line test report, and revising the above part of the attendance book.

As a result, the Defendant instigated P to forge evidence by making 0 and P prepare one copy of the weather test answer sheet in the name of K, which is the evidence of a criminal case or disciplinary case, and one sexual X-cell file, and one copy of the weather test in the name of offline, which is the evidence.

2) The point of counterfeit evidence-using teacher

On October 2016, the Defendant: (a) at FJ around FJ, as set forth in paragraph (2) of the ruling, raised a suspicion of preference in K’s FFF athletic personnel participation and school affairs management; (b) under investigation by the prosecution; (c) through FJ self-audit and audit by the Ministry of Education, procedures for disciplinary action and accusation by the Defendant against the Defendant are scheduled; (d) from the person in charge of FJ’s office and the Ministry of Education’s office of public administration of new industrial convergence universities, the Defendant demanded the submission of relevant materials, such as materials for sexual calculation, materials for recognition of attendance, and materials for answer; and (e) was contacted to the effect that submission of relevant materials is different; and (e) for the purpose of submitting as evidence for the Defendant’s criminal or disciplinary case, the Defendant ordered the Defendant’s assistant P, as set forth in paragraph (2) of the ruling, to submit one copy of the test answer sheet in the name of K, one copy of the examination site, and the sexual X file prepared by falsity, as evidence.

P around the 18th day of the same month, in order to submit as evidence for a criminal or disciplinary case against the defendant in accordance with the defendant's order, submitted one copy of the oral test answer letter in the name of K to TE belonging to the F FF TFGGGGG in order to be produced as evidence for the criminal or disciplinary case against the defendant. On the 19th day of the same month, by submitting the above sexual X-cell file to AE belonging to the FFGGGGGGGGGG, which knows the forgery by e-mail, and then submitted it to T, E, and the person in charge of the administrative office of T, E, etc. of the FFGGG and U, etc. as evidence for the forgery.

As a result, the Defendant instigated P to use one copy of the test answer sheet, which is a forged evidence, and one sexual X-cell file as evidence of a criminal or disciplinary case against the Defendant.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of destroying evidence is established when the evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of another person is destroyed. In a case where the defendant himself/herself destroys the material that would be evidence for the remaining one's own interest by preventing him/her from being subject to criminal or disciplinary punishment, even if the act at the same time results in the destruction of evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of another accomplice or accomplice, such act may not be subject to the crime of destroying evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2608, Sept. 29, 1995; 201Do5329, Nov. 28, 2013). Such legal doctrine also applies to the crime of forging evidence.

In addition, indirect principal offenders also cannot be punished as indirect principal offenders of the same crime, who are a kind of principal offender, and who are not punished as a principal offender of the crime of perjury or alteration. Even if a criminal case causes another person to forge, alter, or use the evidence for his/her own criminal case, insofar as it constitutes an accomplice relation in the same criminal case and is not punished as a crime of perjury, alteration, or use of evidence, it does not constitute an indirect principal offender as well as an accomplice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13151, Jul. 14, 201). Meanwhile, in the crime of fabrication of evidence under Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act, the criminal case of another person includes the criminal case that can be a stolen criminal case even before the commencement of investigation procedure at the time of fabrication of evidence, and even if such criminal case has not been prosecuted or has no influence on the establishment of the crime of forgery of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do51086, May 16, 2010).

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as facts acknowledged, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged.

A) Before January 2016, the Defendant directed only the students in the course of study and doctoral degree before the first semester, and was given additional management of school affairs for undergraduate students from the first semester of 2016 due to the reorganization of the relevant university (the Defendant’s legal statement). Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) entrusted the Defendant with all relevant affairs, such as school administration on the subject of the instant case, etc., to P; (b) assigned them to P; and (c) ordered them to perform the said affairs; (c) upon the Defendant’s instruction, P performed the following tasks: (a) ascertaining the attendance of the offline special lecture; (d) check the attendance of the offline special lecture; (e) audit and supervision on the offline; (e) entering the course of study;

B) The Defendant, upon receiving the request from M for the “Special Beneficiary for K’s academic affairs, immediately delivered this request to P, and ordered P and P to the effect that K would be called “Pass”, and such instructions were made several times during a semester in 2016, and P and P entered “S” as “S” in the “NN Recognition List” file prepared by the X-cell program as “N Recognition List.”

C) 0. P confirmed the X-cell file that was connected to the Defendant’s ID and Q with the Defendant’s fashion, and made it a prior sexual basis material, and then shared the results, etc. of each applicant. The fact that K was absent and refused to do so on the offline special lectures and horses tests, among the X-cell files made as a sexual ground material, the points of the offline portion were as a disturbance, and even though it was well known that there was no ground for sexual grants, the pass score was entered into Q in accordance with the Defendant’s order.

D) On October 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed a suspicion of preference in K’s F.F. K’s entrance and management of school affairs; (b) conducted an investigation by the prosecution; (c) as a result of the F. Educational Foundation Special Audit Committee’s self-audit of the suspicion as well as the audit of special issues of the Ministry of Education, the procedures for disciplinary action and accusation to the Defendant, etc. were anticipated; (d) completed the F. K’s oral test answer sheet under the name of K as if he/she conducted a c.m. c.’s c.m. c.’s c.m. c.’s c.m. c. of the c.n. K’s c. of the c. K’s c.m. test report; and (d) instructed K to make a sexual X-cell file containing false descriptions

E) Accordingly, P around that time prepared one copy of the oral test answer sheet stating 'N', 'sports science', 'R', 'K in the school column', 'K in the name column in accordance with the Defendant's order in F. P around that time, as if K attends the meeting by means of falsely indicating the results of the oral test (10 points) which is the offline of K', 'V' on the K name of the late-end test site, and revised the above part of the attendance book as if K attends the meeting.

(hereinafter referred to as "the evidence of this case") referring to one copy of the above answer site, one sexual X-cell file, and one copy of the weather examination, an off-line, to the attendance of the weather examination.

F) In addition, the Defendant: (a) received communication from the person in charge of F major school affairs and the administrative office of the New Industry Convergence University at around that time to the effect that “the submission of relevant materials, such as material for sexual calculation, materials for recognition of attendance, and answer sheets, is demanded by the school foundation S and the Ministry of Education; (b) requested P to submit relevant materials; and (c) ordered P to submit as evidence a copy of the final test report in the name of K, one copy of the answer sheet in the name of the F major school affairs and the administrative office of the F major Industrial Convergence University; and (d) P submitted one copy of the final test report in the name of K to the F major school affairs and the administrative office of the F major Industrial Convergence University at the F. On the 18th day of the same month, P submitted one copy of the final test report in the name of K to the F major school affairs under the direction of the Defendant; and (e) on the 19th day of the same month, the above sexual files were submitted to AE of the F.

3) Determination

Examining the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the evidence of this case seems to fall under not only criminal or disciplinary cases of the defendant, but also criminal or disciplinary cases of P, and therefore, even if the defendant ordered the defendant to forge and use the above evidence in order to forge and use the evidence of this case concerning his criminal case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant as the accomplice of the same criminal case of P and 0, as the accomplice of the same criminal case, was not punished as the crime of forging and using the forged evidence, insofar as the evidence of this case as the defendant as the accomplice of the same criminal case of 0 and P constitute evidence concerning his own criminal or disciplinary cases and is not punished as the crime of forging and using the forged evidence.

B) Defendant 0, P relationship, and how to conduct the business during the period

As seen earlier, the Defendant stated that all of the affairs related to school administration, such as the withdrawal from the subject of this case, the Opra test supervision, and the entry of school records, etc., are 0 teaching assistants and P, and most of the school administration, are dependent on 0 et al., and the Defendant also stated that “In this court, the Defendant was able to engage in almost most of the school administration of undergraduate students, especially those of them, and 0 trusted to the extent that they will be entirely responsible for the school administration of undergraduate students.” As such, P can be deemed to have practically carried out all of the activities of sexual admission, the submission of related printed materials, etc. in the crime of interference with business described in paragraph (1) of the judgment against the Defendant.

C) 0, Acknowledgement of P Cheating, etc.

(1) The final authority over the recognition of the attendance of the subject of this case and the evaluation of the results of this case is the defendant, who is the person in charge, and the result of passing the subject of this case is ultimately determined and judged by the defendant's final decision, and the person with the subject of this case's thesis and the assistant 0, P seems to have fulfilled the defendant's instructions as well.

(2) However, as seen earlier, P dealt with the overall affairs pertaining to the subject of the instant case. Not only did he/she verify whether he/she participated in and applied for an Opra's special class examination, but also written sexual ground materials to verify the allocation of points by each evaluation factor of each student, and could easily and accurately grasp who has passed and failed to pass the overall course of the instant case including K.

(3) In addition, 0. P made a statement as follows at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, and 0. P seems to have been clearly aware that the Defendant's instruction of "the Defendant's preference to school affairs" is improper.

(A) The defendant stated that "I stated that "I would like to be a student of K, and this student, upon request from the sports department, would have failed to wear a condition for physical speciality (Special 3061 pages, special 3202 pages, 3202 pages, for the same purpose)" and that "I had already ordered the defendant to write K as a seat at the beginning of the semester, and entered Q Q Q's grade at the end of the semester (Special 3063 pages)."

(B) This kind of x-cell file created as a sexual basis material, stated that 'K has the scores of dynasium in the 'K' as 'K', and that 'the defendant has no sexual data about dynasium,' (special 3064 pages) and 'the defendant has continuously dynasium during the semester. The grade was entered into Q, and all of dynasium was entered into Q, and dynasium was reported after the entry. At that time, 'K's results was confirmed. In particular, 'hynasium 3202', 'hynasium' and 'hynasium 3938', 'hynasium 3938', 'hynasium', 'hynasium 4', 'hynasium and 'hynasium 939', 'hynasium'.

(C) All 0 and P stated that if FAIL is normally imposed on K, it shall be deemed that it would not be possible to graduate because it has not received three credits, which are the relevant credits. (Special 3065, 3066 pages).

(4) From April 2016, the Defendant instructed P to 0 times to pass a ‘unconditional test on K’, and it is evident that the above instruction was inappropriate that the Defendant was in the absence of allocation marks for each assessment element during the first semester of 2016.

(5) Furthermore, since O and P entered the results in Q, it is well known that K had been absent and refused to do so at the end of the offline test at the time of the beginning of the final evaluation of the grade and the entry of the results into Q, and that the X-gu from among the X-gu files created as a sexual ground material, "K" was well aware of the fact that the points of the offline part were the disturbance and there was no ground for sexual grants, but did not confirm whether the offline part was on-line or not, and then entered the results in Q, it was ultimately aware that the Defendant did not properly confirm and evaluate all the points of the instant subject, i.e., the online class score, the offline special class score, the offline special class score, and the offline class score expressed in the lecture plan, and that the Defendant did not properly confirm and evaluate them.

(6) Ultimately, considering the above circumstances, P’s age, academic background (dub F), career, work period as a class assistant, etc., P is deemed to have been well aware that the Defendant’s instruction of “special preference to school affairs” against the pertinent regulations or the Defendant’s lecture plan violates the standards for evaluation as stated in the pertinent regulations.

D) The probability that a criminal or disciplinary case against P may begin, P seems to have been difficult to refuse or raise an objection to specific instructions for "the defendant's preference to school affairs", who is a guidance professor. However, as seen earlier, P was sufficiently aware that the defendant's instruction was an unfair instruction that is not general, and even if so, it was actually carried out substantial business for K's preference to school affairs. However, it is sufficient to view that P did not initiate an investigation procedure against P at the time of forgery or use of the evidence of this case, but it is difficult to view that P did not completely eliminate the possibility of becoming a criminal or disciplinary case against him/her at the time of forgery or use of the evidence of this case, and therefore, it is sufficient to deem that the forgery or use of the evidence of this case was forged or used for a criminal or disciplinary case of "the person's personal or disciplinary case of "the other person".

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, since the facts charged as to the charge of forging evidence and obstructing the use of forged evidence are not a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, each of the above crimes (Evidence 3 Forgery and the use of forged evidence 2) is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, and each of the above crimes is found guilty as to the answer of this case which is in the relation of a regular competition (Article 2 of the above Act at the time of sale) and the crime of aiding the use of falsified Private Document (Article 3 of the above Act at the time of sale).

2. As to obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means

A. Summary of the facts charged

Around November 2016, the Defendant submitted to the auditor of special matters in the Ministry of Education, such as U, etc. who is aware of the forgery, etc. through the Fluxian Office and the administrative office of the New Industry Convergence University, etc., the Defendant, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the Flux, forged the Flux’s oral test and response sheet in the name of the Republic of Korea, and submitted to the auditor of the Ministry of Education through the Fluxian Office and the administrative office of the New Industry and Industry Convergence University. Based on this, the Defendant: (a) completed the examination on his own subject; (b) actively made a false statement as if having given K credits by gathering all such facts; and (c) further, (d) as indicated in paragraph (2) of the judgment on November 11, 2016, the Defendant failed to inform the U.S. public official in charge of the foregoing special audit, such as U.S.’s statement that he/she did not know of the preparation of the answer sheet and the attendance of the K.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the auditor in charge of special audit of the Ministry of Education such as U through fraudulent means.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, a deceptive scheme means causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the actor’s act, and the other party’s wrong act or disposition should be made accordingly. If such an act does not reach the point of obstructing or making it practically difficult, it may not be punished as the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1554, Apr. 23, 2009; 2013Do13217, Feb. 26, 2015).

In investigating a criminal case, an investigative agency has the right and duty to determine a suspect regardless of the statement of a suspect or witness and to collect and investigate objective evidence to recognize the suspected fact. Meanwhile, a suspect has the right to refuse to make a statement and a right to make a statement favorable to himself/herself, but does not have an obligation to make a true statement to an investigative agency. In addition, in cases where a witness who has taken an oath in a criminal procedure makes a false statement in an investigative agency, there is no legal obligation to make a false statement only when he/she makes a false statement or submits false evidence to an investigative agency for the purpose of proving the suspect's accusation, such false statement and evidence alone is insufficient by the investigative agency, and thus, if the investigative agency made a false conclusion only with the same false statement and evidence without sufficient investigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established through fraudulent means, and even if the investigative agency actively submits false evidence with the intention of proving that the suspect or witness is not a suspect or witness, it shall not be deemed that it has reached the extent of 200 crimes of obstruction of investigation by fraudulent means.

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized:

(A) conduct a special audit of the Ministry of Education;

(1) The Ministry of Education conducted an audit of a special case by inserting a total of 15 persons from October 31, 2016 to November 15, 2016 on the issue of ‘the suspicion of special benefits in school affairs, such as the suspicion of special benefits in the participation of K's athletic professionals and the grant of attendance and credits.

(2) U (A) participated in the audit of special matters of the Ministry of Education as an auditor, and investigated the facts on the management of the academic affairs of four subjects, including the subject of this case, and verified the supporting materials, etc. delivered from the Flux, and conducted a question and answer to the Defendant,0, and P.

(3) 0. P was consistent with the Defendant’s instruction to the effect that U is generally gathered about U’s question, U has decided not to proceed with the investigation of O and P, and did not prepare a written answer separately.

(4) While conducting an audit, U is doubtful that the Defendant participated in the online taking of the subject of the instant study and the offline language examination, and investigated the records of access to the online taking part (No. 1156 pages), as to the part on-line taking part (No. 1156 pages), and as to the part on the offline oral examination, K’s high school correspondence site was secured for the written comparison with the instant answer site (No. 1154, 1155%).

(5) On November 2016, 2016, the defendant submitted a answer to U.S., and therefore, K applied for the oral examination, and stated that K failed to properly administer the examination, and that "the other person is deemed to have applied for the examination of this case along with the answer to K's letter of high school and the answer letter of this case." However, the defendant stated that "it is not appropriate to grant 10 points to K, even if K recognizes the absence of an offline special lecture."

(B) the publication and request of audit by the Minister of Education;

(1) BV announced the results of the Ministry of Education’s special audit at the joint held office of the CD-Seoul Government Office, and the Ministry of Education distributed the news report data of the title “CE” on the same day. As to the subject of the instant report, the said news report data stated that “K had discovered not only the suspicion of the proxy examination, such as submission of the answer sheet in its name, but also the trace of the proxy lecture in online lectures” (Article 622, 624).

(2) On November 27, 2016, the Minister of Education requested the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office to investigate the suspicion of interference with the business of the Defendant, I, and K, such as the proxy examination for the subject of the instant case and the proxy lecture suspicions. The above suspicions include the following: (a) as a result of neglecting the supervision of the president of the test, such as failing to verify the applicant's identity while administering the horse attendance examination; (b) as a result, the Defendant was unable to apply for the said examination by leaving the country on the same day; and (c) as a proxy examination marking and keeping the answer sheet submitted under the name of K, even if he/she is in the stay abroad, there are instances of proxy lecture such as the discovery of a trace of attending the online lecture of the said subject as a domestic Internet access address; (d) whether the Defendant, K, and J conspired with him/her to request the Defendant to investigate the suspicion of interference with the business of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant's right to request the investigation of the F.19708).

C) Relevant provisions

The Higher Education Act, the Private School Act, and the Ministry of Education Audit Regulations (wholly amended on July 7, 2016) provide for the scope of application of the auditor, the request for measures necessary for the audit, the method of audit, the processing of audit results, etc. (attached Form 2) as stated in the relevant regulations.

3) Whether the Defendant’s fraudulent act interfered with the audit of the auditor’s person in charge

A) Details of the Defendant’s deceptive act

The contents of the Defendant’s deceptive act indicated in this part of the facts charged are as follows: ① the preparation process of the answer sheet of this case, ② the Defendant’s act of making a false statement by himself, ③ the act of submitting forged evidence. The Defendant’s act constitutes a deceptive scheme for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means; and also, whether the Defendant’s act constitutes a fraudulent scheme for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, and whether the Defendant’s act led to the suspension of specific performance of duties by the auditor in charge of the Ministry of Education, such as U, etc. or making it practically difficult.

B) Part concerning instructions to make false statements about O and P

(1) First of all, in light of the above legal principles, it cannot be deemed that there was a mistake, mistake, and mistake of the auditor in charge of the audit of "K" due to the statement, and the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, i.e., U., the auditor in charge of the audit of "K", and the defendant also knew that K could not be present at the end of the end of the end of the subject of this case. The defendant was the time of the investigation, the Ministry of Education was the public prosecutor's absence in the process of the investigation, and the Ministry of Education formed an online course of the subject of this case with a domestic Internet access address despite the stay in Korea, and formed an online course of the subject of this case and participated by the defendant. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of ordering P and P to know that there was a suspicion of interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive means.

(2) Next, the following facts are examined as to the part concerning the direction of the public prosecutor's statement that "not knowing the progress of the preparation of the answer sheet of this case". The facts of the above recognition and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court cannot be viewed as having the legal obligation to make the public prosecutor's statements in the special audit of the Ministry of Education. The contents of deceptive scheme that the defendant ordered the public prosecutor's statement that "I do not know the public", and it is not that the public prosecutor's statements actively contain false contents, and it is not that the public prosecutor's statement that is subject to the public prosecutor's special audit of the Ministry of Education (in particular, the part concerning the subject of the subject of this case) can not be seen as 0, 'the fact relevance of the public prosecutor's statement that P does not have the duty to make the public prosecutor's statement that is hard to expect the public prosecutor's questioning about the truth, 'the duty to make the public prosecutor's statement or the public prosecutor's answer, including his/her right to answer questions.

(3) Furthermore, even if the defendant's act ordering the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office to make a statement "do not know about the process of preparing the answer sheet of this case, K's appearance," it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes a deceptive scheme, which led to the failure of preventing or making it practically difficult to perform audit duties by the auditor, who is the other party to a deceptive scheme, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, U and other auditors continued not to stop the audit of the defendant regardless of theO or P's statement, and eventually, the Minister of Education requested the defendant, etc. to investigate the facts that the Minister requested the defendant, etc. to investigate the special case of the Ministry of Education, such as U through the defendant's deceptive scheme. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with the audit of the person in charge of auditing the special case of U, etc.

(4) Therefore, it is difficult to view the part of the Defendant’s instruction of false statement about 0 and P as constituting a deceptive scheme, which is the constituent element of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means. Furthermore, even if it constitutes a deceptive scheme, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s act

C) The part on which the defendant voluntarily made a false statement

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant stated that "K applied for the verbal examination because it was submitted to U on November 10, 2016," and stated that "the other person is deemed to have applied for the examination in this case with K's written answer as well as K's written answer." The suspect is entitled to submit the right to refuse to make statements and the right to make statements favorable to himself and the right to make statements in favor of himself, and the prosecutor is not obligated to make the investigation agency only the truth, and the part which the defendant made a false statement on the second day of April 4, 2017 does not constitute a deceptive scheme. In full view of the above facts, the part which the defendant made a false statement by himself during the investigation process of U does not constitute a fraudulent scheme for the obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means.

D) The part concerning the submission of false evidence of this case

The defendant's act of submitting false evidence to a special auditor of the Ministry of Education, such as U through the F.U. in order to achieve the purpose of the defendant, constitutes a deceptive scheme that causes mistake, mistake, and land to the auditor. However, in light of the above legal principles by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the health class, the above facts of recognition, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case, as long as the Minister of Education issued a request to investigate the defendant to the prosecutor according to the result of the special audit, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's fraudulent act has prevented the audit officer from performing his/her specific duties or practically difficult to do so. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means cannot be established.

(1) The nature of the special audit by the Ministry of Education

(A) The Minister of Education has the authority and duty to review and investigate relevant material data, such as documents, related persons, etc., and to ascertain the facts with respect to matters determined to conduct an audit on an institution subject to audit, such as private schools, pursuant to relevant statutes. The auditor’s person in charge of audit does not accept all the data or statements submitted by the institution subject to audit and inspection and undergo the process of recognizing and determining the authenticity of the documents or statements,

(B) Furthermore, the Minister of Education may take various measures necessary to conduct audit activities in order to request the attendance and answers of the relevant persons, the submission of documents and articles, the investigation of data entered in the electronic information system, etc., and the private schools and affiliated faculty members under the relevant statutes are interpreted to have a duty to cooperate in such audit activities unless there are special circumstances, and the Minister of Education may take various measures, such as disciplinary action, reprimand, warning, caution, request for investigation, and accusation, according to the audit results.

(C) According to such relevant provisions, an audit of special matters in the Ministry of Education may be deemed as a high level of inspection close to an investigation of a case subject to audit, and it cannot be compared in the same line with an application and application-related acceptance, examination, and permission-related work performed normally by an administrative agency.

(D) In addition, with great social attention to K preferential treatment, the Ministry of Education has published a thorough audit of FJ in the Republic of Korea and overseas, and the result of the audit has been criticized public opinion on the whole society as well as the inside and outside of the FJ from before the audit results, and there were considerable possibilities of denying relevant suspicions or of manipulating ex post facto sexual materials, etc. in order to avoid or mitigate the responsibility of related persons.

(2) Results of audit of special cases by the Ministry of Education

(A) U and other auditors engaged in considerable audit activities, such as securing IP details, K’s high school correspondence, and referring them. Such circumstances appear to have been due to the fact that the audit officer, despite the instant evidence submitted by the Defendant, judged that the Defendant was considerably strong enough to have been suspected of having been in charge of school affairs. Furthermore, regardless of the instant evidence, the audit officer did not have suspicion that the Defendant participated in the instant subject, i.e., giving rise to the possibility that the Defendant was in charge of the instant subject’s participation, and rather, the Defendant was likely to have participated in the overall curriculum of the instant subject, including online taking lectures.

(B) The auditor did not have any awareness of the facts related to K’s preferential treatment in school affairs management, as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, although it was not clear that the Defendant’s 0 and P caused the Defendant to prepare the answer sheet of this case and there was an agency test by K, it did not change the major conclusion that the Defendant participated in the above agency test by determining that the Defendant was involved in the above agency test.

(C) Accordingly, the Minister of Education, in relation to the subject matter of this case, requested the investigation of the defendant, I, and three K to the charges of interference with business, and the request for investigation is a disposition conducted where the probability of the audit results is deemed to be high, and there is only a partial difference between the request for investigation and the accusation.

(D) In other words, while the auditor gives K an unfair pass, and judged that it is highly probable to interfere with the business as an accomplice with K, he/she is not sure that there is no conviction that there is a sufficient proof to the extent of the most severe disposition called an accusation because the defendant's participation method in school affairs is not clearly defined. However, in the aspect of requesting an investigation to the prosecutor who has the authority to conduct compulsory investigation, etc. under the Criminal Procedure Act, the Ministry of Education does not have any substantial difference between the request for investigation and the accusation. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the audit by the Ministry of Education was actually suspended due to the fact that the

(E) In addition, from the perspective of the ‘purpose of special audit’, the Ministry of Education conducted a special case audit with regard to ‘special benefits for entry into the press and the National Assembly inspection, etc. of the government administration of the Republic of Korea' as the case subject to audit. Unless the Ministry of Education grants a strong investigation authority to the same extent as that of the investigation agency, even if the defendant did not disclose the facts of the crime or the method of the defendant's participation in the crime or the method of the defendant's participation in each time, it is difficult to view that the purpose of the special audit was prevented, since it was confirmed that there was a possibility that the defendant was a part of ‘the defendant's participation in the attendance and credit preference through the special audit.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, this part of the facts charged as to obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is pronounced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is

Judges Tae-young

Judicial Chief Judge;

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that the defendant O and P shared the defendant's assistant, and entered the results of the students in Q Q, and that the defendant printed out and submitted this-related sexual data. The defendant also recognized the attendance by O and P and the process of sexual affairs related to these affairs, which did not disadvantage the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense, thereby correcting the facts charged as mentioned above.

3) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant 0 and P provided the above teachers, and among them, forged the answer sheet to the above weather examination.

4) In cases where an investigative agency is a special prosecutor, it is also expressed as a prosecutor’s office. The same applies hereinafter.

5) There appears to be a clerical error in 2016. Nos. 299 (K 5 copies of the lecture plan for the subjects of the first semester in 2016) stated as “the lecture plan for the first semester in 2016.”

6) According to the “History” for K’s application for taking lectures, the subject of the instant case was contained on February 15, 2016 and on March 2, 2016, and was applied for taking lectures on March 2, 2016 (6575).

7) It appears that Q entry commenced on June 22, 2016 and completed on June 26, 2016 (2242 pages).

8) The defendant stated that he/she submitted his/her seal with the direction of the defendant, which he/she had affixed his/her seal (Special 3934 pages).

9) The Defendant did not have confirmed K’s online lecture scores in this court. The Defendant stated that the results of the K-MOC Center are “the results that were not confirmed at the time of passing the K.”

10) The Private School Act provides that an educational foundation’s chief director, etc. may be subject to criminal punishment if it violates orders, such as submission of documents by the Minister of Education, and that an administrative fine shall be punished if any false or omitted matters are reported. The Ministry of Education’s audit regulations also provide that employees, etc. of the institution subject to audit

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.