B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

(c) Violation of the Resident Registration Act;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Square Dong

Reference domicile

2. (a) . Na ○○ (a man born in 47), and non-permanent,

housing Leecheon-si, Lee Dong-dong

Reference domicile

3. (a) . d. e., Lee ○-○ (a woman born in 69 years) and teachers;

In the case of a residential area in the area of a branch of the Gu;

Reference domicile

4.(a)(b) Gimman, Gimman (53 South Korean People), an assistant principal

Residential Leecheon-si, Lee Dong-dong

Reference domicile

Inn-gu Inn-gunn-gu Inn-si

Reference domicile

[Defendant-Appellant] Park ○ (Attorney Park Dong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Shin Dong-dong (Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant Lee Dong-dong)

Attorney Lee Jae-woo (Presiding Justice Kim Il-ok and Justice Kim Il-ju)

2. In the event that Defendant Kim ○-dae and Kim ○-ju fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 50,000 into one day.

3. However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant OO, and for Defendant ○○, for one year for each of the above punishment.

Facts of the premise

Defendant Nowon-gu, 2004 to December 26, 2008, worked as the head of an administrative office in the Dongcheon-gu, ○○ School Administration Office established by the school juristic person’s ○○○○○○○○ (O) from around January 2006 to around March 1, 2009. Defendant Dongcheon-gu, ○○ (O) worked as the principal of the Leecheon-gu, ○○ School. Defendant Lee Dong-do was serving as the principal of the Leecheon-do, ○○ middle school teacher, and Defendant Kim Jong-dae was serving as the deputy principal acting as the principal of the Leecheon-do, Kim Jong-dae, ○, Seoul, from around March 1, 2008 to around December 26, 2008, and from around March 2, 2009 to the appointment of the principal of the ○○○ (OO) who is the principal acting as the principal of the Kim Jong-tae, the principal of this case.

Defendant 1, 208, 200 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University’s entrance into a national high school. From July 20, 208 to November 200, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Nonindicted Party 2, who was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact.

On the other hand, on September 19, 2008, the Defendant ○○○○○○○○ School was supervised by the Office of Education of 15 cities/Dos across the country and found that the “○○○○○○ School, during the 2008 year, entered ○○○○○○○○○○○○ School as the 35 applicants for the three-year-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-three-year-year-three-year-three-year-year-three-year-year-three-year-year-three-year-year-three-year-year-three-year-year-year-old-old-use-use-use-based-use-based-use-based-use-related-use-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related--related-----------------------------------.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was aware of the fact that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was required to correct the gram, and instead, left the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 6. The ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ 2 was aware of the fact that the ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ 1 was aware of the fact.

○○○○○○○○○○○ University’s refusal to conduct a change of schools. Around October 6, 2008, he/she continued to attend the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University, which was an ordinary student who is not the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was required to have his/her school year changed without permission, and, at the same time, he/she did not have his/her right to conduct a change of schools.

【Criminal facts

1. Violation of the Resident Registration Act by Defendant OO;

On August 18, 2008, the Defendant, even though there was no intention to transfer, on the document, ○○○○ only, and to actually reside in, the Defendant transferred, on a disguised basis, ○○○○○○ in an Ocheon-si, 194 ○○ apartment 104 Dong-dong 194, 404.

Accordingly, the Defendant reported false facts on the resident registration.

2. Interference with the duties of Defendant NoO, ○○○, Kim○-○ (Assistant principal), and Kim○ (Chief of school affairs)

On July 208, 2008, Defendant Nowon-gu requested the ○○○○ to be deemed to have been present at the meeting of a person with a special skills, and received the consent from Defendant’s ○○○○. Defendant’s right ○○, Kim O, and Kim Jong-gu conspired in order to contact the Defendant’s right ○○, Kim O, and to give special skills to the ○○○○○○. Defendant ○○○ was at the school principal of Leecheon-gu, Leecheon-do. On August 20, 2008, around March 20, 2008, the ○○○ stated that the ○○○ was not absent by recognizing the ○○ as a person with a special skills, and that the ○○○○○ was not a person with a special character for the convenience of the Defendant’s ○○○○○, Kim Jong-dae, and a person in charge of sexual affairs, but did not know that the ○○○ was a person with a special character.

Between August 20, 2008 and October 4, 2008, the Defendants: (a) during the class; (b) during the class from around August 20, 2008 to around October 4, 2008, the Defendants entered the number of performance evaluation points in the age (NEIS) by the teachers in charge of each subject, on the premise of the performance evaluation results of the third year and the second year 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 NEI on September 2008.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion, and interfered with the sexual management of teachers in Echeon 00,00,000, 000, 000, 000, 0000, and 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

3. Forgery of private documents by Defendant ○○, uttering of private documents on investigation, obstruction of business

On August 19, 2008, the Defendant received a request from the Defendant’s ○○○ for consideration such as being recognized as a person of special birth. On September 19, 2008, the Defendant discovered the fact that he was unable to submit an answer because he did not apply for an English hearing ability evaluation examination. The Defendant was treated as having been present by ○○○○, and thus, was likely to be aware of such non-contentious fact, and thus, ○○○’s OM card was forged in the name of ○○○.

On September 19, 2008, the Defendant: (a) around 000 0,00 OO-dong OO; (b) around 7,00 OM cards, the Defendant entered OM-related O-related O-related O-related O-related O-related O-related O-related O-related O-related O-related --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- --- ----- ---- ------- --------------- --------.

Accordingly, the defendant Lee ○-○, a private document pertaining to the certification of the number of applicants and supervision, has forged an envelope for collecting the OMR card under the name of thisO (including contained) and exercised it to Lee ○○ (sexual) without knowledge, and interfered with each of the affairs directed by the sexual management of Lee ○ (sexual) and English teachers and Kim ○○ in a deceptive manner in a manner that pretends as if he stated the answer on the OM card.

4. Execution of official duties by fraudulent means by Defendant Noh○○○, ○○○, Kim ○○, and Kim Il-ju

Defendant 1 predicted that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ School will have been present without any permission within the school period, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ School was transferred to an O secondary school which is a national or public school on October 4, 208. On October 16, 2008, Defendant 2: (a) at this○○○○○ School, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○ School’s Department of Private School, he was aware of the fact that ○○○○○○ was present without any permission within the school year; (b) at the 0th anniversary of the fact that ○○○○ School’s transfer was conducted without any permission; (c) at the 0th anniversary of the fact that ○○○ School’s transfer was conducted without any permission; and (d) at the 0th anniversary of the fact that ○○○ School’s transfer did not have been conducted with any written consent of Defendant 2 to change the school year without any permission.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion and interfered with the performance of duties related to the sexual treatment of the teachers of ○ Middle School who are public officials in ○○○○○○ in 2008, which is a public official in the field of public service, in March 2008.

Summary of Evidence

Of the facts stated in the ruling,

Facts No. 1 of the ruling

1. A statement made by the Defendant ○○ in compliance with this Court;

1. Entry of an abstract of resident registration;

Comprehensively,

Facts No. 2 of the ruling

1. A statement made by the Defendant ○○ to the extent that the statement is consistent with this Court’s assignment of the attendance points;

1. Each statement that ○○○ (Fence), EO (BO), leap○○, and Du○○ is in conformity with this set of statements made by the witness in this Court;

Comprehensively,

The facts set forth in the judgment No.3

1. A statement made by the Defendant Lee ○ in compliance with this Court.

1. Each existing envelope of the OMF card and the bags for recovery of the OMF card;

Comprehensively,

The facts of the judgment No. 4

1. Each statement that ○○○ (including ○○), ○○ (sexual), ○○, ○○, and Du○○ is in line with this set of statements made by the witness in this Court.

1. Entry of a record of consultation (No. 170 pages of investigation records);

Comprehensively,

Each of them can be accepted.

Each fact in the ruling has a proof.

Judgment on the Issues

Defendant Noh○’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant Noh○ did not participate in sexual and transfer affairs, and Defendant Noh○○, Kim Il-dae, and Kim Il-ju’s defense counsel asserted that the above Defendants did not have conspired with Defendant Noh○, ○○, and ○○, on the fact that the above Defendants dealt with Noh○ as a special reporter.

In the case of co-offenders who jointly process two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is limited to a combination of two or more persons' intentions to commit a crime by jointly processing a certain crime and causing such a crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intentions is made in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy is established, and even if there was no direct evidence, even if there was a person directly involved in the act of the commission, he is held liable as a co-principal for the act of the other co-principal. This conspiracy is recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there was no direct evidence.

According to the evidence that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony, ○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant’s testimony was given not only to be absent but also to be given one day as an performance evaluation score in the case of a student who is recognized as an extraordinary person. Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony was well known to the Defendant ○○○○○○○, an assistant principal, without permission from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s permission to transfer to another person. The Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not a person with special character, and thus, the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○’s senior executive branch was not a person with special character, and the Defendant’s ○○○’s senior executive branch was not a person with special character.

Therefore, the following facts recognized by the above facts are: ① Defendant ○○○○○○○ School was in charge of the non-public administration affairs, but it appears that it appears that it was sufficiently known that the above Defendants did not have been aware of the special circumstances, such as Defendant 2’s appearance at or without permission, even though they did not work for a long time at this ○○○○ School, and thus, Defendant 2 was in charge of the non-public administration affairs; ② Defendant 2 did not have been aware of the special circumstances, such as Defendant 3’s non-public administration affairs, even though they did not work for a long time; ② Defendant 2 did not have been aware of the special circumstances that the above Defendants did not have been in charge of the above non-public administration affairs, and thus, Defendant 2 did not have been aware of the special circumstances, such as Defendant 3’s non-public administration affairs, in light of the fact that the above Defendants did not have been aware of the special circumstances, such as the fact that they did not work for the non-public administration affairs of this case.

After all, the above arguments are not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant ○○: Article 37(1)3 of the Resident Registration Act.

section 314(1), Article 313, and Article 30 of each Criminal Code (a point of interference with business)

Defendant ○○: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30(Interference with Business) of the Criminal Act

Defendant ○○: Article 231 of the Criminal Act (abstinence of private documents), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (abstinence of private documents)

Article 314(1) and Article 313(1) of each Criminal Code (a point of interference with business)

Defendant ○○ Kim-dae and Kim-○: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of each Criminal Act (a point of interfering with business)

1. Competition;

Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of penalty;

Defendant OO, ○○, EO: Selection of imprisonment

Defendant ○ Kim Jong-dae and Kim Il-ju: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant ○ Kim-dae and Kim-○: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○: Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “grounds for sentencing”).

1. Defendant No. 00

The parent’s mind for the future of his or her father’s his or her father is not understood, and is not in this case

The fact that the wife suffered from his/her father would rather be more harsh punishment against the defendant.

In addition, it cannot be overlooked.

However, this case is due to the defendant's wrong child love for the future of his/her father.

as an example to society, by acting as a defendant who has provided conscience as an educator

Now, our society, in particular, it is difficult to impose a heavy burden on our society, especially educational circles.

Accordingly, the defendant has already been punished by imprisonment with labor due to a mistake from the defendant.

In the process of the instant case, in particular, other accomplices have retired from office on their own.

In consideration of the fact that it cannot be seen as erroneous, its enforcement shall be suspended.

2. Defendant’s right

The defendant does not refuse to comply with the request of the head of the administrative office working for the same workplace.

It is determined that the school can not be an example to the teachers after the course of the school, and thereafter the teachers may not be assigned to the next course.

It should be criticized for a long time as it is not defined. This should be criticized for a long time.

Our society against the defendant who has served in the school and has served as the principal of the school.

It is more so taking into account the fact that high level of morality is required.

Accordingly, the defendant is selected to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant has been under the long age due to this case.

Circumstances in which voluntary resignation has been made with great confidence and pride he has been accumulated in the inside, and the case

consideration that it appears to have not acquired any particular economic benefit due to the occurrence of such

(2) shall suspend the execution of the penalty.

3. Defendant Lee Dong-young

The defendant did not refuse the request of the RoO with which he has a close relationship with him, and he did not refuse to do so.

In the process of complying with the direction of the defendant ○○○, a private person causing the crime of this case

It should be taken into account in detail.

However, the defendant shall observe as a teacher, such as forging a answer sheet, without standing any basic virtue.

The defendant committed the error that our society erred in the misunderstanding of teachers.

It seems that it was wrong that it exceeded the applicable level.

Accordingly, even if the defendant loses his position, the disadvantage that the defendant loses his position is against the defendant.

Even if imprisonment is not to be selected, the circumstances mentioned above and the process of this case

be enforced in consideration of the fact that the defendant seems to have no economic benefits acquired;

example.

4. Defendant Kim Jong-dae, Kim Jong-ju

As mentioned earlier, the Defendants, explicitly or implicitly, took part in the instant crime

(1) If the case was committed to conceal it even after the occurrence of the case, it is highly criticized as an educator.

It should be said that it has committed an erroneous act.

However, the Defendants cannot be said to have played a leading role in the process of the instant case, and they cannot be said to have avoided.

In the case of other Defendants, the degree of mistake committed by them in the course of the series of the instant case, and not

To punish the Defendants to the extent that they would be deprived of their educational status.

I think that it is not reasonable.

Accordingly, the Defendants shall be punished by a fine, and such sentencing factors shall be considered.

to determine the amount of the fine.

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