The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 3,000,000 won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. 1) On January 2019, 2019, the first recruitment examination for the disclosure of the environmental US dollars in C military service (hereinafter “instant recruitment examination”) is not a special competitive appointment examination, and thus, the interview results led to the person.

Even if it is not necessary to conduct a re-examination pursuant to Article 13 (3) of the Regulations on the Personnel Affairs of Local Public Officials C, and there is discretion to determine the successful candidates, and the person in charge of the employment examination in this case may determine the successful candidates through re-marking.

2) On the day of the interview, Defendant B reported the fact that the interview score was given to D, and reported the fact that the interview score re-marked even before preparing the “the result of the interview examination conducted in the employment examination conducted by C in the 2019 C military environmental source” and “the final decision passed by C in the 2019 military environmental source.”

The Defendants interfered with the employment and interview management of D, etc. by deceptive means.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) In the case of Defendant A, the chief of the general civil petition communication office at the time of the interview, and thus, he could not participate in the instant recruitment examination that is managed and supervised by the autonomous administration division.

Defendant

A was presented to Defendant B by means of re-marking G and did not have binding force upon Defendant B to comply with this opinion.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case is justifiable, and there is an error of law by mistake in the facts alleged by the Defendants.

subsection (b) of this section.

The Defendants’ assertion in this part is without merit.

1) Defendant A, H, and G are interviews for the instant recruitment examination (hereinafter “instant interview”).