(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.14.선고 2017노1995 판결

The grant of credits is entirely subject to the authority of the professor in charge, and when the professor in charge enters the results in the Eposing Information System (hereinafter referred to as the "R"), the Minister of Education does not have the authority and obligation to mechanically handle the school affairs and to determine the legitimacy of granting credits on the premise of the entered results. Therefore, it is difficult to regard the academic management duties of the Director General as an independent business distinct from that of the professor in charge of the academic evaluation. Even if it is deemed as another person's business, it is difficult to regard the academic management duties of the Director General as an independent business independent of the professor in charge as an independent business. Even if it is deemed as another person's business, it cannot be deemed that the professor in charge has interfered with the academic management duties of the Director in accordance with the "the above-mentioned System," because

The Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with business affairs. The Defendant did not consider K (hereinafter referred to as “K”) of sports specialty students on the basis of past practices that existed in the past, but did not follow the policy of special birth consideration that was conducted as a whole after the appointment of the president.

The lower court erred by mistake of mistake.

B) Whether there is a public contest with P related to this subject

The Defendant merely issued a general and abstract instruction as to the credits of K with respect to a sports special trainee who has taken the course of study to P (hereinafter referred to as “P”), and did not provide detailed instructions as to the specific credits or attendance. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not have any reason to mention a sports special trainee in the place where Q, other than P, Q, and that P did not appear in the place where Q, and that he was said to be F in the middle of the class, and that P did not make an application for the attending, and that P did not report the Defendant’s absence on April 2014, 201 to the effect that it does not fit the logic in itself; P was enticed to consider K in accordance with the policy of consideration for sports special trainee at the center level of the headquarters; and that P was not prosecuted as an accomplice, it is difficult to conclude that P’s statement is reliable in light of the fact that P was not prosecuted.

C) Whether there is a public contest with S subject P and U

Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Defendant was taking part in the S (hereinafter referred to as “S”) during the summer season course in 2016, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that P and U was strong, there was no instruction to the P to have the special benefits in school affairs. The Defendant’s statement in P cannot be reliable, and the Defendant’s statement in the investigative agency is merely an abstract part, and it is inappropriate to take the Defendant’s grounds for conviction, and U stated that there was no instruction from the Defendant. In light of the fact that the policy for consideration for the sports special students was induced by P to commit the crime, there is no conspiracy between the Defendant and P.

D) Whether the Defendant and N are recruited

Considering that the statement of P and Q is difficult to reliable, and that it cannot be readily concluded that a third party who informed the Defendant of the circumstances of K was N, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have conspiredd to commit a crime of interference with business by deceptive means related to the subjects of N and0, S and T (hereinafter “T”).

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

1) Whether the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means is established

A) another person’s business;

(1) The judgment of the court below

The court below, as stated in its reasoning, stated legal principles on the crime of interference with business: ① sexual credits appraised by a professor in charge is not only a unit of study at a university, but also a basis for recognition of credits for subjects, whether to take courses for higher education, and the total number of credits acquired, etc.; ② Matters concerning the attendance of the subjects applied for education can be determined as well as academic records; ③ The results appraised by the professor in charge are the basis for the management of university's academic affairs, ③ the graduation, completion, attendance, education, education, school administration, school life of the university, ④ the management of academic affairs by the professor in charge of education, as well as the management of academic affairs by the professor in charge, ④ the management of academic affairs by the professor in charge, as well as the management of academic affairs by the professor in charge, and determined that the overall evaluation and evaluation of academic affairs by the professor in charge is clearly distinguishable from those of the professor in charge, ④ the management of academic affairs by the professor in charge from those of the professor in charge, and the overall evaluation and evaluation of academic affairs, etc.

(2) The judgment of this Court

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Article 22 (2) of the Ethical Organization provides that the Ethical, scientific, and teachers shall take charge of the personnel administration (Evidence No. 1, 1604-1605, No. 3304) under the order of the president of the Ethical department (Evidence No. 1, No. 1604, No. 3305, No. 1605, No. 3304), and accordingly, even if the Ethical management affairs ultimately fall under the authority of the president, since the president delegates the Ethical management affairs to the principal, the Ethical management affairs belongs to the independent duties of the principal of the Ethical department, and also falls under the relationship with N., the president. The decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the

(B)the act of deceptive means and criminal intent against the Director of the Department of Education;

(1) The judgment of the court below

(A) Whether P and U's deceptive act and criminal intent are committed

The court below determined as follows: P, in the subject in S, in the subject in question, in U, in the subject in question, that P, in the subject in question, performed proper confirmation and evaluation of allocated points (0: interim and last scenarios, task items, degree of participation, appearance, S: interim and last-term examination, task, attendance, attitude) for each evaluation element of the subject in question, and without performing any evaluation as to the attendance of K, academic achievement or P, or the achievement or degree of the subject goals set by the P and U, and without performing any evaluation as to the degree of the achievement or degree of the goal set by K, the court below recognized the attendance so that K can obtain three credits and two credits allocated for each subject in question, and C+ grade and B + grade were assigned, and the submission of these P, U's false attendance, sexual evaluation and related results, R entry and related data constitutes "act of interference with business" in the crime of interference with business.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that P/U was aware that K not only was absent from all classes beyond 1/6 of class hours but also was unable to obtain any one of the allocated points per evaluation factor of each of the above subjects, and that K was unable to obtain credits for the above subjects.

(B) Whether the defendant's deceptive act and criminal intent are committed

As indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to view that: (a) the number of absence hours is 1/6 or more of the class hours; (b) the Defendant did not notify the Defendant that there was any reason for recognition of attendance or submit evidentiary materials proving that there was such reason; (c) the current status of the horse riding club withdrawal is secured after the recognition of attendance and the evaluation of the grade is completed; (b) it is difficult to view the Defendant as the “head of the supervising agency” to obtain the above status of the class attendance under the school regulations, or that it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not have completed the above curriculum under the premise that he did not have completed the curriculum at all because he did not have any other sexual evaluation factors; and (d) it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not have completed the curriculum at all because he did not have completed the curriculum at all, nor did he have completed the curriculum at all, which is a key shock of the curriculum at which he did not have any legitimate knowledge that he did not have completed the curriculum at all.

(2) The judgment of this Court

(A) Relevant legal principles

In the crime of interference with business through deceptive means that an offender misleads the other party or causes a misunderstanding, dismissal, or site to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, which would result in the occurrence of the consequence of interference with business. Furthermore, the crime of interference with business is established even where the propriety or fairness of business is interfered with (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Furthermore, where the act of inputting information into a computer or any other information processing device was conducted for the purpose of causing mistake, mistake, or site of a person in charge of the business based on the input information, etc., it cannot be said that the act was not directly subject to the person in charge of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 2013

In the crime of interference with business, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing interference with another person's business due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also indefinitely recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009).

(B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, since the professor in charge knew that K would give F credits or U credits to K under the provision and intentionally, as if K would have taken an ordinary course of study and obtained the required credits, thereby making K would make the school affairs team mistake that the sexual evaluation was duly conducted by intentionally entering them into a class, causing a misunderstanding that the sexual evaluation was duly conducted, causing a misunderstanding of the fact that the sexual evaluation was conducted by K would be duly, and the intention of deceptive scheme is recognized. The decision of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to deceptive scheme, or the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the criminal intent of deceptive scheme.

(1) The faculty members in charge enter R’s grade, scores, and number of absence hours, and the faculty members in charge of the school affairs shall perform duties, such as warning for school affairs, expulsion, promotion, completion, graduation, based on the results entered into R as above. Separately, the faculty members shall submit the grade table for subjects to the school affairs team through the administrative office of the college and university. (2) If the faculty members in charge are absent from class 1/6 or more of the class hours, the act of intentionally disregarding the provisions of the school regulations providing that F or U shall be given without any documentary evidence and giving a grade other than F or U is not allowed in itself by abusing or abusing the discretion of the faculty in charge.

③ Article 40(2)2 of the school regulations, which was amended on June 16, 2016 and applied retroactively to March 1, 2016, provides that when a student is absent from an international competition, training, training, training, or training, etc., the professor in charge of the subject may be recognized as a person with attendance if the student submits evidential documents within two weeks of the occurrence of the cause. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5-2 of the Regulations on Sexual Treatment of newly established June 16, 2016, where a student cannot apply for an examination due to any of the subparagraphs of Article 40(2) of the school regulations or any other similar causes, he/she shall report to the professor in charge of the subject before the date of the examination, and if the student fails to file a report in advance due to extenuating circumstances, he/she may conduct an additional test for the affiliated or impose an additional subject (Article 40(2)), and the professor in charge of the subject may submit evidentiary documents at the time of application for an international conference, training, etc. (Article 3).

K did not participate in or train an international conference that can replace the attendance during the first semester and the seasonal semester period in 2016, and did not submit any documentary evidence for the international conference and training to the professors in charge. Therefore, there is no room to apply the above provision.

④ If the professor in charge knew that he/she was present within the scope of discretion given in compliance with the Higher Education Act and the Ethical regulations and that he/she was engaged in his/her duties, he/she believed that he/she was present within the scope of discretion and conducted a sexual evaluation, and that he/she was sexually recognized as having been engaged in his/her duties. If the professor in charge knew that he/she intentionally deviates from and abused the scope of discretion and provided false materials for sexual evaluation, he/she would not have

(5) In light of the fact that the Office of Education and Human Resources has the authority to ex post facto cancel the credits and to correct the results of the study, it should be deemed that it has the authority not to recognize the credits if it was known in advance.

The Ministry of Education issued a disposition to conduct a specific case audit, such as the cancellation of the credits granted to K in the course of study in charge of the defendant, etc., in accordance with relevant regulations.

Article 44 of the Ethical Rule provides that "If a professor in charge of the Ethical subjects intends to correct the results after submitting them to the school team at the end of a semester, he/she may cancel the credits." Article 26 subparagraph 7 of the Ethical Rule provides that "If a professor in charge of the Ethical subjects intends to correct the results after submitting them to the school team, he/she shall submit them to the school team within 20 days from the due date for submitting the results of each semester." Article 7 (3) of the Ethical Rule provides that "the professor in charge of the Ethical treatment shall examine the ground for calculating the results immediately upon receipt of an objection, and shall examine the ground for calculating the results of his/her clerical error (an error, error of entry, data error, calculation error, error, name, or other administrative error)" and Article 26 subparagraph 7 of the Ethical Rule provides that "If a professor in charge of the Ethical subjects intends to correct the results, he/she may directly apply to the school team within a fixed period of time without direct correction."

On December 6, 2016, upon request of the Minister of Education to send the results of special inspections of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Education corrected both the results of the first semester 1, 2015, the first semester 6 and the last semester 2, 2016, and on December 9, 2016, the Ministry of Education issued a school inspector's warning to K on the same date and processed them on December 12, 2016. Even if the school regulations do not stipulate the rules on the subject of cancellation of credits, the Ministry of Education has the authority and responsibility to revoke credits without the verification of the professor's misconduct, and even if the Ministry of Education's revocation of credits is recognized to have been granted, it is difficult to view that the Ministry of Education has the authority and responsibility to revoke credits without the verification of the professor's misconduct's revocation of credits, the Ministry of Education's inspection of the credits for the Ministry of Education's correction order based on the premise that the Ministry of Education's revocation of credits for the Ministry of Education's correction order is not 2.

6) In relation to T subjects, the participants’ prior and follow-up tasks (pre-up tasks include design ices, model wing photographs, etc., finished clothes photographs, day-to-day tasks, etc.) are submitted to the International Exchange Center. Since K did not submit subjects, P prepared the prior and follow-up tasks at the Defendant’s order and submitted them to the International Exchange Center on August 2016 (No. 134-140, 166-169 of the trial record, No. 2302-2306 of the evidence record, No. 6759 of the trial record), and the Defendant was aware of the circumstances that K did not submit the tasks.

(No. 142-143 of the trial record) No. 1 of the No. 201 of the No. 201 of the title of the trial record, the No. 201 of the title of the trial record No. 201 of the title of the trial record No. 30 of the title of the trial record No. 142-143 of the trial record No. 1 of the trial record;

C) Whether it interferes with school administration

The lower court determined, as indicated in its reasoning, that: (a) without recognizing the fact that K has to have been processed in the school register due to the deceptive act of P, U, and the Defendant’s deceptive act, K had been present at the school register without recognizing the fact that it has to have been processed in the F grade or U in the subject; (b) K had been aware that it had been properly given an academic degree; (c) in January 1, 2016, K applied for the above subject and had been actually taken, and had been aware that it had been given an academic degree corresponding to the evaluation factors prepared by the Defendant; and (c) in the school register team, the lower court determined that it was based on the premise that K had obtained a certain grade from the above subject and properly obtained the prescribed credits from other subjects, and that it did not have been able to obtain and manage the aforementioned results under the premise that it did not have been able to obtain and manage the aforementioned results by the Defendant’s unlawful results in the course of work; and (d) under the premise that it did not have been able to obtain and manage the P credits from other subjects.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, it shall be deemed that the school management duties of the principal of the school affairs, such as preparation of school register, sexual management, school statistics, and academic certification, by deceptive means by each professor in charge, have reached the level of the occurrence of the risk of interference beyond the mere occurrence of the risk of interference. Thus, the judgment of the court below that recognized the obstruction of business as legitimate and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the obstruction of

(d) the existence of a practice of consideration for athletic professionals;

The lower court determined, as indicated in its reasoning, that: (a) the Defendant himself/herself recognized that there was no practice to grant credits to the relevant student despite his/her continuous absence in court and absence of evidentiary materials; (b) during the 7 subjects from among the total eight subjects of 1 semester 2015, K’s grade was 0.11; (c) the class was 4 subjects for which the professor affiliated with the sports science department was the professor; (d) compared with the first semester of 2016, K’s participation in the class, achievement of the curriculum goals, academic achievement; and (c) the school regulations and sexual regulations amended on June 16, 2016 also recognized that there was no special difference in the content of the said regulations and regulations to recognize the attendance of the relevant student; and (d) it is difficult to recognize that there was no explicit reason to recognize the attendance of the relevant student; and (e) it is also difficult for the professor to recognize that there was no specific reason to recognize the attendance of the professor’s attendance; and (e) it is also difficult to recognize the content of the above regulations and the Ethization’s Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm and affirm the judgment of the court below that there is no academic practice for an athletic specialist who was absent from the lecture and did not submit the task materials, and there is no error in the misconception of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the existence of an athletic specialist care practice. The defendant's assertion has no merit.

2) Whether there is a public contest with P related to the subject of 0 subjects

A) The judgment of the court below

원심은 그 판시와 같이, ① P은 피고인의 제자로서 2016년 당시 지도교수인 피고인의 박사학위 논문심사를 남겨 두고 있었고, 피고인이 P의 겸임교수직과 관련하여 계약연장, 강의배정 등에 있어 일정한 영향력을 행사할 수 있었던 점, ② P의 진술에 의하면, 개강 쯤 피고인이 자신에게 0의 학수번호 4)를 알려달라고 하면서 'L이라는 학생이 자신의 수업에 들어온다'고 말하는 등 수강신청 이전부터 체육특기생 K가 0 교과목을 수강하게 될 것이라고 알린 점, ③ 피고인은 2016. 3. 초순경 K의 친척이라는 사람의 전화를 받고 P에게 (학기 초에 수강생) 증원을 할 때 'K가 특기생이니까 여석이 되면 애를 증원할 때 넣어줘라'고 얘기했고, (K의 친척이라는 사람으로부터) K의 학번, 이름, 비밀번호 등을 전달받아 P에게 알려주었다고 진술하였는데, 이 교과목을 수강하고 싶다는 수강생의 친척이 담당교수도 아닌 피고인에게 전화를 한다는 점부터 납득하기 어렵고, 피고인이 담당교수 측에서 수강신청을 대신 처리해 주겠다는 취지로 수강생의 친척으로부터 수강생의 개인정보 등을 전달받았다는 점 자체로 상당한 수준의 배려라고 보일 뿐만 아니라 전달받은 개인 정보를 실제로 담당교수인 P에게 전달하여 '여석 있으면 넣어줘라'고 지시한다는 점도 상당히 이례적인 점, ④ P은 2016, 3. 25. 강의 무렵까지 4회 가량(3월 강의는 4일, 11일, 18일, 25일 각 진행되었다) K가 불출석하였음을 인식하고 그 무렵 피고인에게 이를 알리자, 피고인은 P에게 K의 이메일로 강의자료를 전송하라고 지시하였고 이에 PK의 이메일을 알지 못하여 피고인에게 2016. 3. 28. 및 3. 29. 이를 문의하였는데, 피고인은 이미 2016학년 1학기 초부터 수강생 중 한명에 불과한 K에 대하여 상당한 관심을 보였고, P의 입장에서도 피고인이 특정 수강생에 대하여 특별한 배려를 하는 듯한 인상을 받기에 충분한 언행을 한 점, ⑤ 2016. 3. 29. K 명의로 BJ(E대 사이버캠퍼스)를 통해 P에게 피고인의 강의자료를 가끔씩 보내달라고 부탁하는 메시지가 전송된 점, ⑥ P의 진술에 의하더라도 P이 학기 초에 K의 출석을 불렀으나, 피고인에게 K의 불출석을 보고한 시점 이후부터는 학기 말까지 계속 K의 출석을 전혀 부르지 않은 점, I P은 2016. 4.경 피고인이 K의 이메일 계정, 체대 W주임(W)의 전화번호 등을 알려주었다고 진술하였고, 피고인도 인정하는 진술을 하였으며, 실제로 피고인은 2016. 4. 18. P에게 K의 이메일 계정이 포함된 문자메시지를 전송한 점, ⑧ 피고인은 2016. 4. 18. P에게 K에 관하여 '지금 한국왔으니 섭에 온단다. 잘해주셔', '결석은 선수경기 참여 뭐 그런거 갖고 온다는 듯'이라는 문자메시지를 전송하였고, 이에 의하면 K가 해외에 체류하여 출석하기가 상당히 곤란하고 '경기 참여'를 사유로 하여 출석에 갈음하려고 한다는 사정을 잘 알고 있었던 점, ⑨ P은 이 교과목 수강생의 최종성적을 처리하기 이전에 피고인을 찾아가 상의를 하면서 K의 성적에 관한 질문을 하였고, 피고인도 P에게 체육특기생인 K에게 학점을 주라고 하면서 'F를 주지 말라'는 취지로 이야기했다고 인정하고 있으며, 피고인은 P이 담당한 교과목 수강생의 최종성적 처리에 관하여도 일정한 영향력을 행사할 수 있는 상황이었음을 알 수 있는 점, ① P의 진술 중에는 다소 과장된 부분이나 시점을 혼동한 부분이 일부 발견되기는 하나, 전체적으로 피고인의 영향력으로 인하여 K에게 허위의 출석인정, 성적평가를 하였다고 일관되게 진술한 점, ① P, V, Q의 진술에 의하면 비교적 엄격한 성적 처리를 하여 온 피고인이 K에 대하여 유독 평소와 다른 모습을 보였다는 점, 2 피고인과 P이 나눈 문자메시지의 내용을 보더라도, P은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고인이 학사전반에 관하여 지시하거나 부탁한 사항을 대부분 그대로 이행하였던 것으로 보이고, 의문이 있거나 독자적으로 처리할 수 없다고 판단되는 사항의 경우에는 피고인에게 의견 내지 지침을 구하였던 것으로도 보이는 점, 13 피고인의 영향력이 아니고서는 0 교과목의 담당교수인 P이 자신에게는 다수의 수강생 중 한 명에 불과한 K에 대하여 굳이 이 교과목의 모든 수강일에 출석한 것처럼 출석부에 허위로 기재하고 (C+ 학점을 부여하는) 부당한 업무처리를 할 만한 특별한 외부 요인을 찾아볼 수도 없는 점, ④ P은 피고인의 주장과 상반된 입장을 취함으로써 박사학위를 사실상 포기하는 상황에 처할 수 있고, 은사에게 등을 돌린 제자로 인식되어 E대나 학계에서 나쁜 평판을 받을 수 있다는 불이익을 감수하였으므로, P이 자신의 책임과 판단에 따라 학사특혜를 실행하였음에도 뒤늦게 피고인에게 모든 책임을 전가하기 위하여 허위의 사실을 꾸며내고 있다고 보기는 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인은 학기 초 K의 계속된 불출석과 아울러 해외에 체류 중인 K의 출석이 곤란하다는 사정을 알고 있었던 것을 비롯하여 K에 대하여 정당한 교과이수를 전제로 학점을 부여하기가 어렵다는 사정을 알고 있었고, 피고인과 P의 지위 및 관계 등에 비추어 P이 피고인의 지시에 따라 출석인정, 성적평가를 할 것이라고 충분히 인식하고 있었으며, P으로서도 피고인이 K에 대하여 허위의 출석인정, 성적평가를 행하라는 것으로 충분히 이해할 수 있고, 실제로 부당한 학사특혜를 실행하기에 이르렀으므로, 이로써 피고인과 P 사이에는 출석인정, 성적평가상의 학사특혜를 실행하는 데 의사결합이 있었고 이러한 의사결합에 따른 담당교수인 P의 실제 실행행위도 있었으며, 피고인이 주관적 요건인 공동가공의 의사와 객관적 요건으로서 그 공동의사에 기한 기능적 행위지배를 통하여 0 교과목 관련 업무방해죄에 P과 공동 가공한 공동정범에 해당한다고 판시하였다.

B) The judgment of this Court

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the Defendant’s conspiracy is just and acceptable, and it is difficult to deem that there was an error of misconception of facts as to whether the Defendant conspired or not.

① According to the statement of Q and Q and Q, the Defendant stated that the term “at the end of 2015 year or early 2016,” “at the beginning of 2015,” and “at the beginning of 2016, 124, 153-154, 272-302, evidence records 2, 2274, 4, 5973, 597-5998,” and Q made the Defendant as a leading professor, and they were employed as a visiting professor. P completed the doctor’s degree course, and completed the doctor’s degree course and completed the doctor’s degree course, and completed the doctor’s degree course, and was employed as a visiting professor upon the Defendant’s proposal. Thus, even if the Defendant was somewhat inappropriate, the Defendant appears to have a panel composed of them, and there is no natural situation.

On June 18, 2015, K opened from L on June 10, 2015, and opened from L to L on December 12, 2015, considering that the name was reflected in K’s school register on March 2016, K appears to have been stated in K, a name after opening the name. According to the P’s statement, the name of the Defendant informed P on March 2016 that P would not attend the school, and the name of L was known, which was called “L”, and therefore, K was not present. (A) On the first week of the lecture, the first week of the lecture was the period for the correction of attendance, and the name of L could not be used for the subsequent period for the correction of attendance, and thus, the P’s right to attend the school could not be considered to have been left, but the P’s right to attend the school could not be considered to have been left for the same person, without recognizing that the Defendant did not have any credibility and credibility of the P’s right to attend the school record.

③ During the period of demotion on March 25, 2016, P recognized that L, referred to by the Defendant, did not appear in the list of students, and asked the Defendant of who is a sports specialty student referred to by the Defendant (trial record 1: 126, 175-176, page 4 of the trial record, page 2974). In this case, on March 25, 2016, P was punished for a conflict with AT professor and a school affairs warning call on March 25, 2016. AT was sought on March 28, 2016.

④ As the Defendant asked the Defendant of how to reduce K’s grade, the Defendant her finite finite, but her finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite f infinite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finc. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

⑤ Upon the issue of the subject, P stated that: (a) the Defendant sought for the subject; (b) the subject was submitted; (c) the Defendant purchased books and color papers with the Defendant’s credit card upon the Defendant’s proposal; and (d) the Defendant’s credit card was delivered with W on September 2016; and (c) the Defendant sent the examples of the subject matter by meting and delivering W (No. 141-143, 171; (c) the evidence record No. 3rd 264-2267 of the evidence record); and (d) W made a statement corresponding thereto (i) 1/346, 360 of the trial record; (d) 3/1588-1589 of the evidence record).

3) Whether there is a public contest with S subject P or U

A) The judgment of the court below

As indicated in its reasoning, the lower court stated that “P” in order for the Defendant to participate in S to the effect that “PK was aware of his or her sexual intercourse,” and that “P and W were given instructions to the effect that the Defendant would have been “PP”. In fact, P and W sent conversations, text messages, etc. from June 7, 2016 to June 15, 2016, and W sent K’s ID and password as text messages to P on June 8, 2016. According to the “History” in the name of K, the Defendant did not appear to be in charge of the P and M&D instructions, and the Defendant did not appear in the P and M&D instructions, but did not appear in the P and M&D instructions to the effect that the Defendant did not appear in the P and M&D instructions, and the Defendant did not appear in the P and M&D instructions to the effect that he or she did not appear in the P and M&D instructions.

B) The judgment of this Court

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the defendant stated that K was "N" as the defendant was "K was to attend the four subjects at once (the trial record 130, 163, 165 pages), ② K was attending the subject following the subject, and the absence of lectures, non-submission of the subject matter, the failure of training, and the failure to present documentary evidence, ③ the seasonal semesters like the subject in which the defendant was in charge, and P was assisting the progress of the subject, it is just and acceptable to determine the above judgment of the court below, and it is difficult to see that there was a mistake of mistake of facts as to whether there was a public offering.

4) Whether the Defendant and N are recruited

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined as stated in its holding, based on the following circumstances, that: (a) upon the request of N, the president of the Ethy president, N, the president of K, N, the president of K, and upon the request of N, the president of K, the Defendant directly or as the Defendant’s representative professor, or the Defendant’s representative professor or visiting professor, requested the Defendant to the effect that he/she can obtain credits for the subjects he/she takes charge of the subjects he/she takes charge of the subjects established in the garment Industry Department; (b) the Defendant explicitly or implicitly accepted them; and (c) the Defendant explicitly or implicitly accepted them; and (d) the N, during the season from 1 to 2016, in cooperation with the Defendant to strengthen his/her decision-making on such acts, the lower court determined that the combination between the Defendant and N, the “academic special benefits in relation to the subjects of study,” as well as the combination between N, the Defendant and N, the “academic special benefits in the sexual evaluation.”

① On March 1, 2015, K entered the Ministry of Sports and Science of the E-M University on March 1, 2015, but was still absent, and became subject to an academic warning during the first semester of 2015.

② N는 (BG에게 I을 만나고 싶다는 의사를 밝혀) 2015, 9. 21. 총장실에서 I, BG과 만나 K 등에 관한 대화를 나누었고, 2015. 10. 7. 총장 공관에서 함께 저녁식사를 하는 도중 1의 휴대전화로 독일에 체류하는 K와 통화를 하면서 격려의 말을 건넸다.

③ At around December 4, 2015 and around December 31, 2015, N has met several times at the cafeteria (cafeteria), around February 19, 2016, and around April 18, 2016, at BS hotel, and the president’s office, etc. around April 18, 2016. At around 10 times, N has accumulated several friendships that exceed the ordinary relationship between university professors and parents from around December 3, 2015 to August 22, 2016.

④ From September 2015, N appears to have already been divided into a large number of conversations with regard to the management of K’s school affairs, including I and K’s sojourn in Germany, personal training, and planning of uniforms.

⑤ From early 2016 to early 2016, N appears to have divided a considerable number of dialogues about K’s overall school affairs management by giving notice to the Defendant who works in the clothing industry department, such as informing him/her that he/she may take seasonal semesters, teaching guide programs, and BO online lectures.

④ While Q and P made a statement that Q and Q and Q, at the end of 2015 or year Q and 2016, entered the Defendant’s vehicle with P, the Defendant stated that Q and Q and Q were able to enter the Defendant’s school class. Furthermore, Q and Q were not clear at the first investigation, but there was a president’s frank during the given conversation. At the time, the Defendant’s speech was considered to be “dynasium or dynasium upon his request by the President of the National Institute of National Institute of National Institute of National Assembly.” On October 2016, Q and Q and Q stated that “I’s dynasia, Ir’s dynasia?” and “Irn’s dynasia?’s memory was made within Q and Q’s experience, not within the president’s free understanding, and the Defendant’s statement that Q and Q made a statement within Q and Q made a statement that Q were in conflict with each other’s vehicle under his request.

7) While having taken the first semester in March 2016, K continuously absent until the end of March 2016, K continued to be absent from the end of March 25, 2016, K was given a warning of ‘preventive danger' from K, a guidance professor, around April 18, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, K was found to contact BG with K, while only two professors in charge of the course of study applied for K, who met BD, BE, BC, and BB, and N in the president office with K. At the same time, I was not only N at the time, but also there was sufficient incentive for K, who is able to request continuous special academic benefits to K, who is staying in Germany.

④ At the request of I, N asked Y as a mentor for sports specialty students. W, upon contact with I, has been assisted by K’s school affairs management, including the application for enrollment, after contact withY on May 17, 2016, and N has also received K’s school affairs management, and at the request of the Defendant, asked Y to recommend books that can be seen as the first-year student of other majors.

9. N was identified that I would apply for a course and take part in the first semester of 2016 and the second semester of the summer season for K.

① From around 2011, the Defendant and N have maintained a considerable kind of relationship, and became known as so-called 'beef (the weak in the Vietnam War)' within E, and received calls or text messages on several occasions a day using each other (1,465 times from November 22, 2015 to November 21, 2016). The Defendant had been informed of the fact that he/she had received e-mail messages from NA on August 27, 2016, including that he/she had received e-mail messages from 1,465 on his/her own, and that he/she had received e-mail messages from NA to 3, 2016. The Defendant had been able to receive e-mail messages on his/her own from e-mail applicants, including 1,465 times he/she had received e-mail messages on his/her own. The Defendant had been able to receive e-mail messages on September 27, 2016.

(12) On June 8, 2016, the Defendant received a transmission of the e-mail from the F University Administrative Office of the F University, copied the above contents, and transmitted it to N on June 9, 2016. On June 13, 2016, after receiving the e-mail from the International Exchange Office, “K is a person who is not entitled to the payment of the tuition program support cost for professors”, copied the above contents, and sent them to N on the same day, and sent them to Kakaoox on the same day. N made a statement on June 10, 2016 and June 14, 2016, respectively, that the Defendant sent it on N’s request, and that N also asked whether it is possible to attend this course and stated that it was recognized through the Defendant.

(13) On July 3, 2016, V received the Defendant’s instructions and sent a text message stating that K would inform the personal information of a person accompanying it when K goes to China, and on July 15, 2016, the Defendant sent a message stating “China schedule is known to the Chinese Republic of Korea.” On July 15, 2016, the Defendant sent a message stating “K schedule.............. of entry) to the Kakao Kakao Group on July 15, 2016.” It appears that the Defendant sent the message stating “K schedule” to a third party.

(14) On August 2, 2016, at around 19:43, the Defendant first sent a call to I for the first time, and thereafter sent a call or text message more than 30 times until September 29, 2016. The Defendant received I’s phone number from a third party.

(15) N plays a role as a intermediary between the Defendant and the Defendant in relation to the management of school affairs, etc. of 0, S, and T&T subjects. In addition, N can be sufficiently confirmed that the Defendant sent to the Defendant a request for the special benefits of school affairs of the side, which has been accumulated with the general interest or consideration of the sports specialty students, beyond that of the Defendant. According to the Defendant’s third party, it is not N’s request, but there is no special external factors that can be performed with K directly or through P, even though there is no special benefits of school affairs, even though there is no special relationship of relationship with K, even though there is no special external factors that can be performed with K.

(16) Since the first semester of 2016 without any change in circumstances, K’s credits and credit points have rapidly become good.

B) The judgment of this Court

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court, comprehensively considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that recognized the Defendant and N’s conspiracy is justified, and it is difficult to see that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether there was collusion. The Defendant’

① Q made a statement to the effect that the Defendant asked the president from the time he was getting on and off the Defendant’s vehicle with P. The lower court stated to the effect that Q Q was aware of the Defendant’s request. The lower court stated that: (a) the circumstances that the Defendant’s statements were about credibility judgment; (b) the Defendant’s statements were specific; (c) the Defendant’s statements were made before Q Q was examined on January 15, 2017; (d) the Defendant’s statements were made without human participation; and (e) Q Q was made once an investigation was conducted on one occasion before the Defendant’s arrest; and (e) the Defendant’s statement that Q Q Q was related to the Defendant was made at the time of the Defendant’s statement that it was difficult for the Defendant to obtain a doctor’s degree from the Defendant at the time of his testimony; and (e) the Defendant’s statement that Q Q Q was made at the time of his testimony that it was unfavorable to the Defendant, given that it was difficult for the Defendant to obtain a doctor’s degree from the Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s bar on January 26, 3.

② According to the currency content from December 2, 2015 to February 2016, N [The date when the Defendant and the date when the call was sent is made shall be December 4, 2015; December 10, 2015; December 11, 2015; December 11, 2015; 2015; 12, February 4, 2016; 2016.

A person shall be appointed.

In light of the fact that the time of sending text messages, the time of sending text messages, and the fact that I visited E with K on April 18, 2016 and April 20, that there was a professor in charge of N and several subjects, etc., the defendant is highly likely to immediately send text messages to P after receiving text messages from N.

③ At the same time, K visited the president’s office on April 18, 2016 and called “N have taken lessons in the course of taking lectures.” At that time, K’s number of absence hours is more than 1/6 of the class hours.

AV, on June 7, 2016, added K to the list of students participating in the Solo overseas learning program, who participated in T subjects on the direction of the defendant (Evidence 216 pages 216, 6 rights 8067, 8143-8147 pages), and the defendant also acknowledged that the defendant issued a list additional instructions (Evidence 6 rights 8328 pages, 1 rights 408 pages of the trial record). The aforementioned calls between N on June 5, 2016 and 14441 and 65 seconds on June 15:36, 2016, and the defendant was given a list of 09:24 and 16:6:0 of the same day on June 7, 2016, and then sent a list of 16:0 of text messages to N on the same day on the same day (Evidence 16:16, 2016).

⑤ On June 13, 2016, V reported to the Defendant on June 13, 2016, upon receipt of the notification that K was not entitled to receive the support fund for the teaching staff program, from AD personnel at the International Exchange Center, and reported to the Defendant. If K wishes to participate, V paid personal money. At the time of reporting, V stated that the Defendant did not appear to have any particular response and did not give the direction that K would know the fact of the payment due (No. 218-219 of the trial record), and that the Defendant was informed of the payment due to N on the same day. On June 20, 2016, K applied for the education. The Defendant received a report from V and attempted to know the fact that K was paid to N directly.

W. On June 23, 2016, 201 : 1: 2. YO 2. YO 2. YO 1: 3: He/she sent text messages to YO 2. 3: 6: 1: He/she was informed of the fact that he/she was not able to receive YO 2. 6: 2. 6: 6: 1: 3: 6: 6: 1: 6: 3: 6: 1: 6: 206 NO 2. 6: 3: 6: 1:66: 1: 206 NO 2. 6: 3: 6: 1: 206 NO 2. 6: 25: 3: 3. 6: 25: 3: 206 NOO 10418. 206. 26. 2016

⑦ V은 피고인이 '국가대표 체육특기생이래, 학교에서 쟤(K를 지칭한다)한테 특별히 관리를 하는 것 같아'라는 식의 말을 하였던 것으로 기억한다고 진술하였다(공판기록 1권 226-227, 233, 252면), 이러한 인식을 내비친 피고인의 언급은 총장인 N가 피고인에게 K에 대한 학사특혜를 부탁하였음을 보강하는 사정이다.

(8) On August 18, 2016, the Defendant entered K’s grade into “S”, and submitted the results of the subject and the records of attendance to the administrative office. At this time, the Defendant received N and text messages frequently from August 2, 2016. In addition, the Defendant sent N and China first call on August 3, 2016, and received text messages on August 14, 2016, when the Defendant was sent to I and China (Evidence evidence record7 rights 10409-10413, 10425-10430, 10430).

B. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

1) The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty and discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act. However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance, respected under the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct administration, and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the matters constituting the conditions for sentencing and the sentencing guidelines, etc. of the first instance court’s sentencing as indicated in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, or is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23,

2) The circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the Prosecutor as the elements of sentencing in the trial of the lower court were already revealed during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the circumstances in the sentencing guidelines and the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was rendered. The Defendant has been performing the teaching role by putting in the E-garment Department and efforts for students, as well as several professors and students wished to leave the Defendant’s front position, and when the sentence is finalized, there is anticipated disadvantages in relation to the status that would lose teaching positions, and there is a need to support the mother of 83 years old, but it seems that the Defendant has already been going back to the lower court and reflected in the sentencing. Considering all the circumstances indicated in the instant oral proceedings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing was made within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it cannot be deemed too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure

All of them are dismissed.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and assistant administrator;

Judges Min Il-young

Judges Hong Man-man

Note tin

1) According to Article 59 of the School Regulations, the president of UNIST violates school regulations upon the proposal of the Central Guidance Committee or the University Guidance Committee, following the deliberation by the School Affairs Committee.

Any student who has violated the principal portion of the student may be disciplined, and the disciplinary action shall be classified into reprimand, probation, abandonment, inorganic purification, and expulsion.

2) Article 60 (Order, etc. for Correction or Modification) of the Higher Education Act

(1) With respect to facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs and other matters, the Minister of Education shall require schools to provide education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or orders or school regulations thereunder.

If it is contrary, the founder, operator, or head of a school may order him to correct or change it within a specified period.

(2) The Minister of Education fails to comply with an order for correction or modification issued under paragraph (1) within the designated period without justifiable grounds.

The cancellation or suspension of violations or the reduction of the fixed number of students, the closure of departments or the mother of students in the schools, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Any measure, such as suspension of collection, may be taken.

(3) The Minister of Education shall, where it is evident that a violation cannot be corrected or changed due to its nature, such as the termination of the violation, etc.

Measures under paragraph (2) may be taken without issuing an order for correction or modification.

3) In the case of representative, Article 38 of the school regulations shall be revoked even if the credit has been recognized as a single credit if it has been proved that it was based on an unlawful act.

Article 8 of the Organizational Regulation provides that a class credits team shall be established in the school administration, and the attached Table of Article 3 of the Work Division Regulation shall be the school administration team.

As part of the funeral service, the content of the semester performance, the academic and academic records management, sexual management, etc. is included in the school register of the school office.

On August 28, 2017, after obtaining approval from the Minister of Education, the Minister of Education submitted the results of treatment, such as the cancellation of credits for the relevant student, and the treatment of qualifications.

In the case of a national university, the proviso to Article 36 of the School Regulations shall be deemed to have been determined by strike or fraudulent act even if the credits for which such credits have not been recognized.

Article 9-5 of the Organizational Regulation provides that a school team shall be established in the Death Campus and the astronomical Campus Office, and duties shall be performed.

Article 16 of the Regulations on Division provides that the school affairs team shall take charge of the management of school affairs and the management of school records, and the school affairs team of the school affairs shall take charge of the school affairs on August 22, 2017.

The Minister shall, with the approval of the Minister, revoke the results of the relevant student and issue an academic warning to the relevant student, and obtain approval from the Minister of Education, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Education, and the President.

The Ministry of Education submitted the results of treatment, such as the handling of the F credits of the relevant student.

In the case of Joseon University, Article 41(2) of the School Regulations provides that "it may be revoked if the credit recognized as such is caused by an unlawful act or mistake."

In addition, Article 7 (2) of the Regulations on the Organization shall have a school affairs management team in the school affairs office, and Article 4 of the Regulations on the division of duties and the division of duties and the delegation of duties shall be a school affairs.

The division of duties of the operating team includes sexual processing and management, preparation and management of the school register, etc., and the school affairs management team of the school affairs is the school affairs management team on August 2017.

25.As a result, with the approval of the Director General, take such measures as handling the credits of the student concerned and revoking the credits.

4) As an identification number for the subject organized in the curriculum column, the organization area of the curriculum for the subject, the classification of major (department), the code by level, etc.

It refers to an identification code that expresses information.

심급 사건

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.6.23.선고 2017고합112

서울고등법원 2017.11.14.선고 2017노1995

-대법원 2018.11.29.선고 2017도19500

참조조문

참조판례