A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in this case, it interferes with the employment B(C) of service personnel.

Punishment of the crime

The Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “D”) is a juristic person established for the purpose of operating high speed railroads in G and H sectors at a starting point, and the Defendant is a person who, from December 26, 2014 to November 18, 2016, works as the head of the D Personnel Affairs Team and performed duties, such as employment, labor, personnel, etc. of D.

1. On March 10, 2016, J (J 2) held a personnel committee and decided to employ 188 employees, including one employee in the field of public relations in which the person who passed the first document screening process was entrusted to an external company with the evaluation (qu) of 40% fixed at 10% fixed at 40% fixed at 40% fixed at 60% fixed at 10% fixed at 20% fixed at 200, and publicly announced the recruitment of new employees through D website, etc. on March 11, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, after March 20, 2016, after the expiration of the period of receipt of documents under the above recruitment notice, K, a personnel team employee of the personnel management team, received documents from the D personnel team office located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and received documents from M of the Technical Director M to the I (OPIC) foreign language field (OP). “Although I applied for the public relations office at this time failed to attach documents to the document screening, I recommended that I would be a hostile in this field, passed the first document screening, passed the first document screening, and reflected I's foreign language evidentiary documents submitted after the expiration of the period as above in the evaluation of documents.

However, even though the foreign language evidence document that was unlawfully received as above was reflected in the result of the examination of the screening of documents by the KO, which is an external evaluation company, it was not included in five times the number of documents that I fell under the total of 69 points and 110 points, etc., and the defendant would not be included in five times the number of documents. In order to allow the successful applicant to pass I in the irregular landscape of the previous date on March 28, 2016, the defendant would make a "external evaluation" for the document screening without the approval of the head of the management strategy office for the revised policy in consultation with the KO.