The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

A. On August 9, 201, the Defendant is the executive director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and at the meeting room of the above company on the fourth floor of HA building at Jeju around August 9, 201, in order to employ five administrative staff members of G, the Defendant, upon completion of an interview with the 13 persons who passed the document screening, instructed J, the Defendant’s subordinate employees of the Defendant, to pass the interview at the fifth level and to manipulate their interview scores, thereby hindering work regarding the employment of the victim A by having the representative director of G, who is not aware of such circumstances, employ the applicants designated by the Defendant, thereby hindering the work of employing the victim A through deceptive scheme.

B. On August 9, 201, the Defendant is G’s executive director. At the meeting room of the company above the fourth floor of H building in Jeju around August 9, 201, in order to employ five administrative staff members of G, the Defendant: (a) after completing an interview against 13 persons who passed the document examination, the interview victim I submitted the grading table to J who is a subordinate employee of the Defendant; (b) first leave the meeting room; (c) the remaining interview members, K, and L et al. who want to select the Defendant among the above applicants at the Defendant’s initiative; (d) eight applicants who want to attend the meeting at the close room with the order of first to eighth, which is set by the Defendant’s discretion, and (e) passed the meeting up to five years and manipulate their scores; and (e) by having the representative director of G, designated by the Defendant, interfere with the Defendant’s fair and objective interview of the victim through interview with the interview of the victim.

2. The lower court’s determination is that “The head of the accounting team and the English language of the Defendant is familiar with the working-level.”