Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 8,00,000 won, and Defendant D shall be punished by a fine of 8,00,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who is in office as the head of U-Gu from June 200 to June 2010 and has overall control over personnel affairs as a person who has appointment authority and personnel authority for public officials belonging to U-Gu.

Defendant

C From July 1, 2007 to April 21, 2009, the head of U-Gu general administration division of U-Gu is a person who comprehensively performs personnel-related affairs by assisting U-Gu public officials belonging to U-Gu.

Defendant

D is a person who is in office as the head of the personnel management division of U-Gu from December 15, 2005 to February 28, 2010 and has been engaged in personnel affairs comprehensively by assisting the head of U-Gu who is the personnel management team for public officials belonging to U-Gu.

1. Joint crimes committed by Defendant A, C, and D;

A. According to the rules on the evaluation of local public officials related to the evaluation of service performance, an appraiser of service performance shall prepare and submit to the Work Performance Evaluation Committee a list by unit of evaluation which combines the results of the evaluation of public officials subject to evaluation. The Work Performance Evaluation Committee requires the examination and decision of priority and rating points of the public officials subject to evaluation in the work performance evaluation table based on the list by unit of evaluation submitted as above. The order of priority in the evaluation table by unit of evaluation prepared and submitted by each Dong office, etc. under U-Gu shall not be changed. Thus, in case where an appraiser prepares a work performance evaluation table which determines the order by class of service performance rating of all public officials of U-Gu, it shall not be changed between the group of public officials subject to the same evaluation, and the head of the Gu who is the appointing authority may raise an objection to the Work Performance Evaluation Committee when it is deemed that the result of the evaluation of service performance rating submitted by the Work Performance

However, in the case of Grade 5 and Grade 6 public officials, unlike the above rules of evaluation, the U-Gu office is all of the public officials subject to evaluation by grade.