Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was an interview examiner of the “Employment Examination for Public Officials B” in 2016.

On September 5, 2016, the defendant consented to the appointment of the above public official interview review committee at the D School Headquarters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the above public official interview committee member, and if there is a reason to affect the appointment due to the reason for exclusion, such as the relative relationship with the applicant, the duty relation with the applicant, etc., the defendant shall apply for the challenge of the examination committee member.

Although the signature and seal was affixed to the letter of consent, he was placed in the household design of the E Education Center in Seoul Special Metropolitan City from March 2007 to February 2, 2008.

G and students of the 201 201 201

H, despite being aware that H applied for the above interview, did not intentionally make an application for avoidance, and eventually participated in the examination and gave three examiners the highest score among the three examiners, thereby allowing G to pass the above examination.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the principals of the D principal with respect to the selection of public officials by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Each police statement made to I and G;

1. A written accusation;

1. Determination of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on a request for investigation, the defendant and defense counsel did not obstruct the public official's work, and they did not have such intent.

The argument is asserted.

In the case of obstruction of business through fraudulent means, it means that a person who causes mistake, mistake, or land to another person in order to achieve the purpose of an act, and makes him/her use of it. The establishment of obstruction of business is sufficient if the result of obstruction of business is not required, and if there is a danger of causing the result of obstruction of business, it is sufficient to cause the result of obstruction of business. It is not itself, but even if the propriety or fairness of business is hindered (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010, etc.).