The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.

1. Status of the defendant;

From July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2014, the Defendant served as the superintendent of education in the early straight line system, and ○○○ also served as the superintendent of education in the second straight line system from July 1, 2014.

2. Criminal facts;

A. Abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights

1) Relevant statutory provisions

According to the provisions of the Local Public Officials Act, the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials, and the Rules on the Evaluation of Local Public Officials under the Superintendent of the Office of Education, ① A person who has conducted performance rating (hereinafter referred to as "a person who has conducted performance rating") and a person who has conducted performance rating (hereinafter referred to as "a person who has conducted performance rating") shall objectively evaluate the performance of service (50%) and performance rating (50%) of public officials subject to evaluation, and shall integrate the results of evaluation, prepare a list of records by evaluation unit, submit them to the Work Performance Evaluation Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Board Chairperson") (hereinafter referred to as "service performance rating"), and ② A work performance rating committee, based on the list of records by evaluation unit, shall examine and determine the reputation and reputation points of the public officials subject to evaluation in the performance rating list.

In addition, the procedure for determining the person eligible for promotion of local public officials is to examine and decide the rank and reputation of the public officials subject to evaluation in the committee for deliberation, and to notify the appointment authority (superintendent of education) thereof. (4) The appointment authority shall prepare the list of candidates for promotion by setting the priority in the sum of the points of the most recent years (in the case of class 5, 3 years) and career points determined by the committee for deliberation, and (5) when promoting local public officials of class 5, he/she shall be appointed from among the persons falling under the scope of promotion, and the appointment authority shall comply with the prior examination results of the personnel committee for promotion of public officials under his/her jurisdiction, except in extenuating circumstances.

In addition, when there is no immediate superior or superior supervisor of the evaluator, the appointing authority may not designate the person to be confirmed, but the appointing authority shall not separate the roles of the evaluator, the person to be verified, the person to be appointed, the person to be verified, and the personnel committee, and shall not intervene in the deliberation and decision of the committee for deliberation or the promotion of the personnel committee, and shall not interfere with the deliberation and decision of the committee for deliberation or the promotion of the personnel committee or unfairly affect the deliberation.

(ii) in the first half of 2013 near the year;

On July 31, 2013, the Defendant received a report from the superintendent of the Office of Education of ○○○○ Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education on the first half of the year 2013 from Nonindicted Party 1 and other personnel in charge of the affairs related to the first half of the year 2014 as of January 1, 2014, that the number of persons eligible for promotion to Grade 5 is two, and the Defendant classified Nonindicted Party 2 as the persons eligible for promotion to Grade 5 as of July 31, 2013, and made a list of candidates for promotion (the list of candidates for promotion) as of July 31, 2013, and directed that he/she should prepare a list of candidates for promotion as of July 31, 2013.

Accordingly, the personnel officers, such as the chief of the General Affairs Division, Nonindicted 1, etc. classified Nonindicted 2 as persons eligible for promotion of class 5 to class 4, according to the Defendant’s order, and prepared “data on Promotion of Candidates for Class V or lower in general service at the end of June, 2013” in line with the order of promotion candidates, reported to the head of the administrative bureau, the vice chief of the office of education, and the superintendent of the office of education at the end of June, 2013, and received the members’ review and decision by preparing a list of records of evaluation units based on them through the Committee for Deliberation.

As a result, Non-Indicted 3, Non-Indicted 4, and Non-Indicted 5, whose rank was higher than that of the above non-Indicted 2, were ranked in the second, third, and fourth order in the list of candidates for promotion as of January 31, 2013, but they were ranked in the third, fourth, and fifth order in the list of candidates for promotion as of July 31, 2013, while the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion was ranked in the second, fourth, and fourth, the second, fourth, and fourth, among the 64 persons in total subject to the evaluation in the second, the second, fourth, and fourth, among the 73 persons in total subject to evaluation, the order of ranked in the fourth, fourth, and fourth, the second, fourth, fourth, and fourth, among the 73 persons in the list of candidates for promotion, and second, the second, second, second, second, third, and fourth, second, fourth, fourth, and fourth, second, fourth, second, and fourth, second, and fourth, second, second, third, and fourth, second, third, of the list.

As such, the Defendant first set the order of promotion to Grades 5 through 4 without going through lawful deliberation procedures as prescribed by the relevant statutes, and then set up the list of promotion candidates according to the order determined by the Defendant. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, the head of the administrative bureau, the confirmation person, the vice superintendent of the board of education, and the committee for deliberation and resolution of the public officials subject to evaluation to be assessed in accordance with the relevant statutes, the Defendant set the order of promotion and the reputation of the public officials subject to evaluation according to the order of promotion determined by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant, who is a public official, abused his official authority, had personnel management officers such as Nonindicted 1, etc. do not have a duty.

(iii) in the first half of 2014 near the year;

On July 1, 2014, the Defendant received a report on the promotion of the first half of the year 2014 from Nonindicted Party 1 and other personnel in charge of the general affairs division at the office of the above Superintendent of the Office of Education, as well as a report on the promotion of the first half of the year 2015, on January 1, 2015.

On the other hand, when preparing the first list of candidates for promotion of Grade V local facility officers and the second order of promotion, respectively, the personnel management officers reported Nonindicted 6 to the director of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the office of education who is assessed, and the confirmation person, on the first list of candidates for promotion and the second order of promotion, respectively. However, Nonindicted 7’s second order of promotion was three consecutive times, and the performance record was outstanding, and the defendant was ordered by the vice superintendent of the office of education to order Nonindicted 7’s second order of promotion and the second order of promotion, and reported the above matters to the above vice superintendent of the office of education.

The personnel management officers at the time were the promotion ranking of the Grade 5 local facility officers and Nonindicted 6 were the Grade 1 and Nonindicted 7, while Nonindicted 6 continued to serve as the Grade 1 in the first half of the year in 2014, when the promotion ranking of Nonindicted 7 in the first half of the year in the first half of the year in 2014 was assessed against Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 6 was the burden on the promotion ranking. The vice superintendent of the board of education should set the promotion ranking on the basis of the first half of the year in 2014 on the basis of the first half of the year in 2014, and accordingly, it was reasonable to set the promotion ranking on the basis of the first half of the year in 2014.

Although the Defendant was reported from personnel officers such as the chief of the general affairs division, the Defendant neglected the opinion of the deputy superintendent of the board of education, made Nonindicted 6 to prepare the list of candidates for promotion (the list of candidates for promotion) on July 31, 2014, by classifying Nonindicted 6 as the persons eligible for promotion ranking corresponding to the number of persons eligible for promotion, and ordered them to prepare a list of candidates for promotion (the list of candidates for promotion) on the first half of the year in 2014 to meet the above order, and to have them undergo the examination and decision-making of the members of the Committee.

Accordingly, the personnel officers, such as the chief of the General Affairs Division, Nonindicted 1, etc. classified the class 5 Nonindicted 6 as the persons eligible for promotion in the higher rank corresponding to the number of persons eligible for promotion of class 4 as ordered by the defendant, and prepared “data on the promotion candidates for class 5 or lower in general service at the end of June 2014” in accordance with the order of the promotion candidates, and made a report again to the chief of the administrative bureau, the vice chief, and the superintendent of the office of education in 2014, and received the examination and decision of the members by preparing a list of records of evaluation units based on them through the Committee for Deliberation.

As a result, Non-Indicted 7 was first in the second second in the second half of 2011 to the second half of 2013, while the second in the second half of 2012 to the second half of 2013 was first in the second in the second half of 2013, but the second in the second in the second half in the second half in 2014 was adjusted to the second in the second in the second half in the second half in the second half in the second half in 2014, and Non-Indicted 6 was first in the second in the second half in the second half in the second half of 2011 to the second half in the second half in the second half of 2013, while the second in the second half in the second half in the second half of 2012 to the second half in the second half in the second half in the second half in the second half in the second half in the second half of 2014, the second in the second half in the second half

As such, the Defendant first set the order of promotion to Grades 5 through 4 without going through lawful deliberation procedures as prescribed by the relevant statutes, and then set up the list of promotion candidates according to the order determined by the Defendant. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, the head of the administrative bureau, the confirmation person, the vice superintendent of the board of education, and the committee for deliberation and resolution of the public officials subject to evaluation to be assessed in accordance with the relevant statutes, the Defendant set the order of promotion and the reputation of the public officials subject to evaluation according to the order of promotion determined by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant, who is a public official, abused his official authority, had personnel management officers such as Nonindicted 1, etc. do not have a duty.

(iv) in the first half of 2015 near the year;

On July 1, 2015, the Defendant received a report on the promotion of the first half of the year 2015 from persons in charge of personnel affairs, such as Nonindicted 8, the chief of the general affairs division, at the office of the above superintendent of education, on the first half of the year 2015, on January 1, 2016.

On the other hand, when preparing the first list of candidates for promotion (the list of candidates) on July 31, 2015, the personnel management officers reported Nonindicted 9 to the director of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the office of education who is the evaluators in Grade 9 and 2, respectively. However, since Nonindicted 9's performance record is low and the performance of duties is poor and there are many complaints, the personnel management officers received instructions from the vice superintendent of the office of education to lower Nonindicted 9's priority in the last half of the year 2015, and the Defendant also reported the above matters to the above vice superintendent of the office of education.

At the time, Nonindicted 9 was the promotion order of the Grade 5 local educational administrative affairs officer, and Nonindicted 9 was the Grade 14 and the Grade 10 was the Grade 4, and the order of promotion of Grade 4 as of July 31, 2015 was determined at Grade 10 and the Grade 9 as of July 31, 2015. However, Nonindicted 10 was scheduled to retire at Grade 4 because Nonindicted 9 was scheduled to retire at Grade 10 in the second half of 2016, so it was not significant to promote Nonindicted 9 to Grade 4. While excluding Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 9 was intended to classify Nonindicted 9 as the promotion target, it was intended to classify Nonindicted 9 as the promotion target, and the vice Superintendent of the Office of Education was purely determined on the basis of the work performance record on the second half of 2015. According to this, it was inappropriate to classify Nonindicted 9 as the person subject to promotion of higher level.

The Defendant reported the position of the vice-superintendent of education from the personnel officers, such as Nonindicted 8, the chief of the general affairs division, disregarding the opinion of the vice-superintendent of education, and made Nonindicted 9 a list of persons eligible for promotion, which is classified as persons eligible for promotion in higher rank corresponding to the number of persons eligible for promotion, and ordered the Defendant to prepare a list of candidates for promotion on July 31, 2015, and to meet the above order 1) set forth a list of the first half of the year 2015 and the first half of the year 2015, and to have the members of the neighboring committee sign a review

Accordingly, the personnel officers, such as the chief of the General Affairs Division, Nonindicted 8, etc. classified the class 5 Nonindicted 9 as the persons eligible for promotion of class 4 as the persons eligible for promotion of class 5 Nonindicted 9, according to the Defendant’s order, and prepared “data on Promotion of Candidates for Class V or lower in general service at the end of July, 2015” in line with the order of promotion candidates, and made a report to the chief of the administrative bureau, the vice chief, and the superintendent of the office of education at the end of July, 2015, again made a report to the chief of the administrative bureau, the vice chief, and the superintendent of the office of education at the

As a result, in the case of non-indicted 10 and non-indicted 9, the second, third, and second, third, and third, third, third, and second, third, and third, third among the total 72 persons subject to the evaluation in the first half of the year 2012, among the total 64 persons subject to the evaluation in the first half of the year 2012, the order of precedence in the second, third, and third, third, and second, third, and third, third, and fourth and fourth, among the total 79 persons subject to the evaluation in the second half of the year 2014 were the 77 persons subject to the evaluation, among the total 77 persons subject to the evaluation in the second half of the year 2014, the order of precedence in the second, second, and second, second, second, and second, second, among the total 84 persons subject to the evaluation in the first half of the year 2015, the order of precedence in the second half of the year 2015 was 75, second, and second, and fourth, fourth.

As such, the Defendant first set the order of promotion to Grades 5 through 4 without going through lawful deliberation procedures as prescribed by the relevant statutes, and then set up the list of promotion candidates according to the order determined by the Defendant. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, the head of the administrative bureau, the confirmation person, the vice superintendent of the office of education, and the committee of deliberation, the public officials subject to evaluation to be assessed at the committee of general secretary, Nonindicted 8, etc., are in line with the order of promotion candidates as determined by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant, who is a public official, abused his official authority, had personnel management officers such as Nonindicted 8, etc. do not have a duty.

(v) the first half of the year 2015.

On January 2016, the Defendant reported the promotion report for the first half of the year 2015 from personnel officers, such as Nonindicted 8, the chief of the general affairs division, etc. at the office of the above superintendent’s office, along with the promotion report for the second half of the year 2015, and reported the promotion list (the promotion list) on January 31, 2016, and ordered the promotion order of Nonindicted 11, who is the chief of the office of education, to raise the promotion order for the second half of the year 2015, and to prepare a plan for the promotion order and deliberation of the members of the deliberation committee.

Accordingly, the personnel officers, such as the chief of the general affairs division, Nonindicted 8, etc., set up the list of candidates for promotion of Nonindicted 11 at a higher level than the first one, and set up the list of candidates for promotion of general service at the end of January, 2016, and reported again to the chief of the administrative bureau, the vice chief of the office of education, and the superintendent of the office of education in the second half of 2015, in order to meet the order of candidates for promotion, and then to make a report to the chief of the office of administration, the vice chief of the office of education, and the superintendent of the office of education. Based on

As a result, the number of years required for promotion from the date of appointment of Grade V to the minimum number of years required for promotion was 4 years, and the above non-indicted 11, which was the first registered person of Grade IV promotion candidates, was adjusted on January 31, 2016 to 65 out of the total number of 81 persons subject to evaluation in the second half of 2015.

As such, the Defendant first set the order of promotion to Grades 5 through 4 without going through lawful deliberation procedures as prescribed by the relevant statutes, and then set up the list of promotion candidates according to the order determined by the Defendant. Pursuant to the relevant statutes, the head of the administrative bureau, the confirmation person, the vice superintendent of the office of education, and the committee of deliberation, the public officials subject to evaluation to be assessed at the committee of general secretary, Nonindicted 8, etc., are in line with the order of promotion candidates as determined by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant, who is a public official, abused his official authority, had personnel management officers such as Nonindicted 8, etc. do not have a duty.

B. Violation of the Local Public Officials Act

No person shall intentionally commit any act interfering with, or exerting any unjustifiable influence on, any examination or appointment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed an act identical to the above paragraphs (a)(2), (3), and (4) with respect to the promotion of local public officials of the ○○○ Provincial Office of Education.

Ⅱ. Determination

1. Relevant legal principles

A. The crime of abuse of authority is established when a public official entrusts a public official with an exercise of his/her authority on matters belonging to his/her general official authority to practically and specifically commit an unlawful or unreasonable act. The general official authority does not necessarily require that it entail legal compulsory power. If it is abused, it is sufficient that the public official has the other party to the exercise of his/her authority perform an act that does not have legal obligation or interfere with the exercise of his/her rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6251, May 27, 2004).

B. The term “violation of authority” in the crime of abuse of authority means that a public official unlawfully exercises matters falling under his/her general authority, namely, in the form of a formal and external manner, it appears to be an act other than a legitimate authority. Accordingly, the abuse of authority is distinguishable from a tort using a status where a public official does an act that does not fall under his/her general authority. In addition, the term “duty” in the crime of abuse of authority refers to a legal obligation and does not constitute a simple psychological obligation or moral obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2800, Dec. 27, 191).

C. The criteria for determining whether a public official constitutes abuse of authority shall be determined by taking into account all the elements, such as the purpose of a specific public official’s act of performing his/her duties, the necessity and reasonableness of the situation in which the act was committed, and whether the exercise of official authority satisfies the legal requirements permissible (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1884, Jan. 27, 2012).

D. “When one allows a person to perform a non-obligatory act” means the time when one allows a person to perform a non-obligatory act. Accordingly, even if a public official allows a person in charge of business to perform a fact-finding act assisting the performance of his/her duties with respect to matters belonging to his/her official authority, this does not constitute “when one causes a person to perform a non-obligatory act” as a matter of principle in the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights. However, if the standards and procedures for performing his/her duties specifically stated in Acts and subordinate statutes and the standards and procedures for performing his/her duties are applied and the person in charge of business is given a unique authority and role to participate in the procedures, such act constitutes “when one assists a person in performing his/her duties in violation of such standards and procedures” (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13766, Feb. 10, 201)

E. Article 123 of the Criminal Act provides that the freedom of decision-making by a person, in addition to fairness of state function, shall be protected. If the above crime is completed, it is insufficient to say that there was an act that interferes with the victim’s duty or right, and it is necessary to interpret that an act that did not perform the victim’s duty or interfere with the victim’s right is achieved (see Supreme Court Decisions 75Do2665, Oct. 10, 1978; 2003Do4599, Feb. 9, 2006; 2003Do4599, Feb. 9, 2006). There is a proximate causal relation between the abuse of official authority and the result of an act that did not perform the victim’s duty, or the result of obstruction of right.

2. Facts recognized;

According to the evidence examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(a) A supplementary course for an officer of Grade V, who is a local public official belonging to the ○○○ Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as “official subject to evaluation”);

1) An officer subject to evaluation is affiliated with the main office of ○○○○ Provincial Office of Education, its affiliated office of education, schools of various levels, etc., except for the main office, the officer subject to evaluation by each evaluation unit is 2 and 3 in some office of education, etc., but there were many cases where only one person in each school, etc.

2) The evaluators per evaluation unit are the head of the relevant agency except the main office, the head of the administrative bureau shall be the head of the office, and the confirmation person shall be the vice superintendent of the board

3) When submitting a list of the records of work performance evaluation and the records by the evaluation unit for the officer subject to evaluation in the evaluation unit, excluding the main office, at each ordinary time, the general affairs division of the main office and the personnel management team (which consists of the officer in charge of personnel management and two or more working-levels) prepared the draft of the list of candidates for promotion of the political party and consulted and coordinated with the general affairs division.

4) The above draft draft prepared by the general affairs division was reported to the director general of the administrative bureau, the vice superintendent of the board of education, and the superintendent of the board of education in sequence. In the process, some revision was made and the list of candidates for promotion was finalized

5) Once the list of candidates for promotion becomes final and conclusive, the personnel management officer prepared the performance rating statement of the officer subject to evaluation of the main office and the list of the secretary list of the main office in parallel with the preparation of the general meeting of the officer subject to evaluation. In this process, the general meeting of the officer subject to evaluation who is not registered in the current term's list of candidates for promotion failed to meet the minimum number of years required for promotion, and the general meeting of the officer subject to evaluation who is not registered in the list of candidates for promotion was in accordance with the ratio of the general meeting of the members prescribed in the Local Public Officials Decree, except

6) The officer in charge of personnel management reported the proposal to the Committee as the executive secretary of the Committee, and the Committee examined and decided the proposal with the same content as the supplementary point(s).

(b) The motive for preparing data on the list of candidates for promotion;

1) The ○○○○ Office of Education established the list of candidates for promotion before the Defendant was appointed to the Superintendent of the Office of Education, and prepared a work performance evaluation report on the officer subject to evaluation at the main office, and deliberated and decided on the supplementary points by holding a deliberation committee.

2) According to the above practice, the performance rating and the actual performance rating during the individual rating period are not only related to each other, but also inconsistent with the deliberation procedure prescribed by the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and the Ordinance

3) Nevertheless, maintaining such practices by the ○○○ Office of Education is the most important result of the promotion, special promotion, payment of performance bonus, education and training, and management of positions, etc., which are not reflected in various personnel management, such as promotion, special promotion, performance bonus, education and training, and management of positions. The promotion has been made in the order of priority in the list of candidates eligible for promotion, taking into account the organization stability and predictability, the relevant public official's promotion period according to the order of priority in the list of candidates for promotion, which led to the recognition that the ranking in the list of candidates for promotion

(c) Detailed procedures for determining data on the list of eligible candidates for promotion;

1) The manager of the general affairs division and personnel team prepared the draft of the data on the list of candidates for promotion (including the officer who meets the minimum of four years required for promotion, excluding the promotion and the retired) in the immediately preceding list of candidates for promotion. The above draft was prepared in the form of maintaining the order of priority in the immediately preceding list of candidates for promotion. Meanwhile, the list of candidates for promotion was prepared with an emphasis on the public order of candidates for promotion and accordingly, the officer first registered in the list of candidates for promotion was given a lower rank than those registered in the immediately preceding list of candidates for promotion.

2) Based on the above draft, the personnel team members including the officer in charge of personnel affairs and the chief of the general affairs division adjusted the ranking by taking into account the degree of difficulty of duties, work of shooting department, retirement within one year, reputation, etc., and adjusted the strengths that should be given during the period according to the priority adjustment.

3) The officer in charge of personnel affairs reported the draft prepared by the general affairs division to the director of the administrative bureau, reflecting the opinion of the director of the administrative bureau or the opinion of the director of the administrative bureau, and reported it to the vice-superintendent of education. Likewise, the officer in charge of personnel affairs and the director of the general affairs division reported to the defendant who is the superintendent of education by reflecting the opinion of the vice-superintendent of education and

4) If the defendant received the draft which had been passed by the vice superintendent of education, it is finalized as is, and if the defendant has received other opinions, it was corrected again and finally confirmed as final approval by the director of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of education.

(d) The process of determining the nearest point;

1) Once the list of candidates for promotion becomes final and conclusive, the personnel management officers prepared the list of the candidates for promotion. The director general of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the board of education concentrated on the ranking of the officials subject to evaluation recorded in the list of candidates for promotion, particularly on the higher ranking corresponding to the number of persons eligible for promotion, and did not have a significant interest in the list of candidates for promotion, and the personnel management officer prepared the list of the candidates for promotion in accordance with the list of candidates for promotion.

2) The chief of the general affairs division, as an executive secretary of the plenary committee, reported a supplementary point to the plenary committee. Based on this, he/she examined and decided the supplementary point to the plenary committee. The supplementary point reported by the chief of the general affairs division was examined and decided as is.

3. As to abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights

A. A. Abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights due to the preceding half-year manipulation in 2013

1) According to the evidence examined by this court, the defendant was reported to the fact that there are two persons who can be promoted from personnel officers, such as the chief of general affairs division, non-indicted 1, and that the non-indicted 2 was reported to the draft of the list of candidates for promotion (the draft) and that the non-indicted 2 was the first five candidates for promotion. The defendant presented to the personnel management officer the opinion that Non-indicted 2 would have developed a large number of students in the preliminary personnel team and that he would be promoted at this time. The personnel management officer revised the ranking of candidates for promotion of non-indicted 2 to the second candidates for promotion, and reported to the head of the administrative bureau, non-indicted 12 and non-indicted 13 of the vice superintendent of the board of education. The fact that the above draft was finalized by the defendant's approval, and the personnel management officer prepared a supplementary point to the non-indicted 2's order to the second candidates for promotion, and reported it to the Jung-gu Committee and decided as it is.

2) According to the Local Public Officials Act, the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials, the Decree on the Appointment of Local Public Officials, and the Rules on the Evaluation of Local Public Officials under the Superintendent of the Office of Education, a person who has the authority to appoint a Grade 5 position shall evaluate the rate of 50% of work performance and 50% of job performance performance. On the basis of the results of the evaluation of the evaluators and the person who has the authority to appoint, the Committee on the Deliberation of Workers shall receive and determine the priority and rating points of the public officials subject to the evaluation in the work performance rating list (in this case, the order of priority in the evaluation list by the evaluation unit cannot be changed) based on the results of the evaluation of the evaluators and the person who has the authority to appoint the public officials subject to the evaluation, 70 points determined as above, and 30 points for the career evaluation given by the work experience, and prepare the promotion list necessary for promotion in the order of high-ranking persons. According to the above provisions, since the reputation of each public official subject to the evaluation is the authority of the deliberation committee, it is beyond the authority of the appointing authority.

3) However, according to the above facts and the evidence examined by this court, ① the ○○○ Office of Education recognized the existence and practical necessity of the above neighboring practices, and Nonindicted 13, the head of the administrative bureau, vice-superintendent of education, and the Superintendent of the Office of Education, prior to the Defendant’s position as the Superintendent of the Office of Education, was to report the list of the list of candidates for promotion in order of the head of the administrative bureau, the vice-superintendent of education, and the Superintendent of the Office of Education, to reflect his opinion, and to confirm the above proposal. Accordingly, it was to prepare the list of the records of work performance and the list of the records concerning the public officials subject to evaluation belonging to the main office, to report it to the Committee of Mors, and to examine and determine the points based on it. ② Nonindicted 12 and the vice-superintendent of education, who are the evaluators of the officials subject to evaluation belonging to the main office, were aware of the existence of the above neighboring practices and the actual necessity, and Nonindicted 12 of the Office of Administration, as the role of Grade 4 in this Court, did not present the Defendant’s opinion or dissenting opinion (3).

Based on the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the personnel management officer prepared the list of candidates for promotion, reflecting the defendant's opinion and prepared the list of candidates for promotion, and accordingly, it can be deemed that the act assisting the evaluation duty of the director general of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the office of education who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person responsible for the above, and there is the person who is the person in charge.

Then, preparing a supplementary point and reporting it to the deliberation committee can be deemed as the duty of the personnel officer in charge of personnel affairs, who is the executive secretary of the deliberation committee, and the preparation of a supplementary point in accordance with the materials on the list of candidates for promotion (the list of candidates for promotion) is in accordance with the practice that the personnel management officer knew that it was necessary, and it is not against the will of the deputy superintendent of the office of education or the director of the administrative bureau, and it is not against the will of the deputy superintendent of the office of education or the director of the administrative bureau, and it is difficult to see that there is a proximate causal relation between the personnel management officer and the defendant's act, as it is difficult to see that there is a proximate causal relation between

Furthermore, while the defendant is in office of education, the deliberation on the officer subject to evaluation was conducted in the same procedure. The defendant's personnel management officer prepared and reported the draft of the list of candidates for promotion to the head of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the office of education, and approved the draft of the list of candidates for promotion without submitting any other opinion, all of the defendant's involvement can be deemed to have finally determined the list of candidates for promotion. In addition, it is difficult to view that the preparation of a supplementary document is the same, but it is also difficult to view that it constitutes a case where the defendant allowed the personnel officer to perform an unobligatory act only when the defendant

B. Abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights due to the preceding half-year manipulation in 2014

1) According to the evidence examined by this court, the personnel officer prepared the draft of the list of candidates for promotion, which was first reported by Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 13, and presented the dissenting opinions by Nonindicted 13, the personnel officer revised the draft to Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 6, and the Defendant presented his opinion that it is reasonable to consider the personnel officer’s opinion and the opinion of the vice superintendent of the board of education. Accordingly, it is recognized that the personnel officer was re-reported to the director general of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the board of education as the first draft and the vice superintendent of the office of education was accepted and told by Nonindicted 13.

2) As seen earlier, allowing the Defendant without the ordinary authority to determine the above proposal according to the opinion of the person in charge of personnel affairs, who held Nonindicted 6 as first instance, on the list of candidates for promotion that actually depends on the reputation would exceed the scope of the Defendant’s authority stipulated in the statutes.

3) However, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a personnel officer perform an act for which he/she is not obligated to do.

4) Even though the defendant did not accept the opinion of the non-indicted 13 of the vice-superintendent of education, the vice-superintendent of education is merely the confirmation person, and the evaluators of non-indicted 7 of the main office are the director general of the administrative bureau, and the director general of the administrative bureau is rated in consultation with the confirmation person, and the director general of the administrative bureau is rated independently, and this is also the authority of the neighboring committee, and since the vice-superintendent of education does not have the authority to independently make decisions, it cannot be deemed that the non-indicted 13 violated the vice-superintendent of education's authority to evaluate the non-indicted 13, since it does not have any other opinion

C. A point of abusing official authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights due to a sudden manipulation in 2015.

1) According to the evidence examined by this court, the personnel management officer prepared the draft of the list of candidates for promotion with Nonindicted 9’s rank, and obtained the approval of Nonindicted 12’s director of the administrative bureau, Nonindicted 13, the vice superintendent of the office of education, presented his opinion that it is inappropriate to promote Nonindicted 9, but did not instruct the correction of the draft, but the personnel management officer did not notify the Defendant of the dissenting opinion of the vice superintendent of the office of education, and it is recognized that the Defendant reported the draft to the Defendant and approved it as it is.

2) As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of having personnel in charge of personnel affairs perform an act of non-performance of obligation on the grounds as seen in the foregoing paragraph, for the following reasons: (a) it is beyond the scope of the Defendant’s authority stipulated in the statute, allowing Nonindicted 9 to determine the draft of the list of candidates for promotion, which actually depends on the reputation of the person in charge of personnel affairs.

3) Although Nonindicted 13 presented the Dissenting Opinion with respect to the order of Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 13 did not instruct other specific officials to be assigned to the higher order corresponding to the number of persons eligible for promotion, and in light of the fact that the deputy superintendent of education is merely a confirmation person who is not an evaluator, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated the deputy superintendent’s authority to evaluate the deputy superintendent’s office of education. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act constitutes a case where the Defendant had personnel management personnel perform an act without any obligation.

D. Abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights due to the preceding manipulation in the second half of 2015

1) According to the evidence examined by this court, the defendant reported the draft of the list of candidates for promotion to the personnel management officer and agreed that the defendant would raise the order of Non-Indicted 11, who is the chief secretary of the non-indicted 11, would be better. The personnel management officer revised the draft to raise the order of Non-Indicted 11 to the second and third stairs, and recognized the fact that the defendant obtained the approval through the chief of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the office of education

2) As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, who does not have the right of reputation, made Nonindicted 11 raise the order of priority on the list of candidates for promotion, which actually depends on the reputation, goes beyond the scope of the Defendant’s authority as stipulated in the statute, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant, on the ground as seen in the foregoing paragraph (3) of the above A-A-3, had personnel management personnel perform an act for which the Defendant

4. As to the violation of the Local Public Officials Act

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant received the draft of the list of candidates for promotion through the director general of the administrative bureau and the vice superintendent of the office of education in each of the preceding facts of this case and approved the draft or presented revised opinions.

However, in light of the ordinary practices and the actual process of the ○○○○○○ Office of Education’s evaluation of the officer subject to promotion, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was directly directly designated the person subject to promotion; the head of the administrative bureau, in order to reflect the intention of the Defendant, conducted the deliberation of the officer belonging to the main office after the determination of the materials on the list of candidates for promotion; however, in itself, it is not a violation of statutes; even if the proposal was prepared and decided in accordance with the materials on the list of candidates for promotion, there is no evidence that the Defendant participated in the deliberation and decision process of the Committee; and even if the deliberation and decision was made by the Committee, there is no evidence that the Defendant participated in the process of the deliberation and decision process of the Committee; and there is no evidence that the Defendant was prepared a regular list of candidates for promotion or that there was an ex post facto change of the documents already prepared, solely based on the facts seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant exercised undue influence in the ordinary process,

III. Conclusion

Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the acquittal is pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 5

Judges Noh Jeong-ho

Note 1) The “2014” of the indictment appears to be a clerical error in 2015.