2014Gohap798 A. Misappropriation Misappropriation

(b) Interference with business;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

1. A. (b) A,00 high school teachers;

Residence

Reference domicile

2. (a) B,00 high school teachers.

Residence

Reference domicile

3. C (b) and 000 high school teachers.

Residence

Reference domicile

4. D (b) or 000 high school teachers.

Residence

Reference domicile

5.(c) E (E) and home owner;

Residence

Reference domicile

o (Criminal Prosecutions) and O (Public Trial)

1. For Defendant A:

Law Firm

2. The ships for Defendant B and D;

Attorney Park Do-young

3. For Defendant C:

Law Firm

4. Korean line for Defendant E.

Attorney Park Do-young

December 12, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months, by imprisonment of eight months, by a fine of seven million won for Defendant C, by a fine of ten million won for Defendant D, by a fine of ten million won for Defendant A, and by imprisonment of ten months for Defendant E.

When Defendant C and D fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in each workhouse for a period of 100,000 won converted into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

10,000 won from Defendant A and four million won from Defendant B shall be additionally collected.

Criminal facts

The remaining Defendants except Defendant E are teachers of Seoul 00-Gu 000 high schools (hereinafter “00 high schools”) located in 000-Gu 000, Seoul. Defendant A, D are in charge of Korean language, Defendant B’s study, and Defendant C are in charge of English subject, and Defendant E graduated from around 000 on February 2014.

As an officer of the parent association of 000 for two years from 2012.

According to the 000 higher academic achievement management rules, the 000 higher academic achievement management committee is established for the purpose of enhancing the fairness and reliability of academic achievement, reasonable evaluation management, sexual management, management of school life records, etc. In addition, the 000 higher school teachers shall not provide guidance or suggest the answers of questions before conducting the examination by class hours or by other means, such as an interim examination of 00 higher level and the end examination. In addition, the examination questions and answers given by each class, each school year, each teacher's questions and answers, and the dual purpose classification table shall be kept in a lump sum before conducting the regular examination for each semester, and the examination problems shall not be leaked until the date of the examination.

Accordingly, Defendant A, C, and D had a duty to fairly handle and implement students' internal and regular examinations, such as that they do not leak in advance the examination questions of regular examinations by the date of the examination.

1. The crime of taking property in breach of trust by the defendant A and B;

A. Joint crimes committed by Defendant A and B

On April 22, 2012, Defendant A, starting from the Hague Village in the Sari-si city of Pakistan, was made an illegal solicitation to the effect that, within the Nari-si car of Defendant A’s 000 Nari-si, which is running on the road in Seoul, Defendant A’s driving on the road, Defendant A instructed the students who set up the “school test” from E to give F with a few questions to ensure that the test results can be achieved, and that the results of F can be achieved, Defendant A was urged to receive money and valuables from E in return for giving F with a prior instruction for the test questions.

After that, on May 2012, Defendant A received 2.5 million won in cash from E in return for informing F of the problem of study of the first semester in February 2012. At around that time, Defendant A sent one million won among them to Defendant B.

In addition, from May 2012 to early December 2012, Defendant A received illegal solicitation from E on a total of four occasions, such as the No. 1 to No. 4 of the List of Crimes, and received a total of KRW 14 million in cash in return, and delivered KRW 4 million to Defendant B.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire the property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to their duties.

B. Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct

On April 15, 2013, Defendant A received an illegal solicitation to the effect that Defendant A is responsible for, and different from, the three-year Korean language test of F, such as: (a) “Nons” from the above E taking charge of the Korean language and informing of the issue of Korean language test,” and received a delivery of KRW 6 million in consideration of the illegal solicitation.

2. Defendant E’s crime of giving property in breach of trust;

In order to raise the awareness of the inside of his father F, who was attending 000 at that time, the Defendant paid a honorarium to 000 teachers to encourage them to be informed of the examination issue in advance. On April 22, 2012, the Defendant started the above Hague Village and made an illegal solicitation as described in paragraph 1-A. On May 2, 2012, the Defendant provided A with an illegal solicitation as described in paragraph 1-A, at the above-mentioned restaurant where it is difficult to know the trade name prior to the police officer of 00,000, and 2.5 million won in cash to A, in return for informing of the problem of study first semester on February 1, 2012.

In addition, from May 2012 to April 15, 2013, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation to A more than five times in total, as shown in the list of crimes, and granted a total of 20 million won in cash in return.

3. Defendants’ crime of interference with business

(a) Joint criminal conduct of Defendant A, B, and E related to the interim examination for study in February 1, 2001 by the first semester in February 2012;

On April 22, 2012, Defendant A, starting the above Hague Village and driving along the road in Seoul, made an illegal solicitation to the effect that Defendant A would instruct F by creating a problem of study, such as giving test questions to F through the students who set up a problem of study from Defendant E. On April 2, 2012, Defendant A asked Defendant B, at the smoking room located in 000, to request Defendant B, for a personal guidance for the problem of study.

Accordingly, Defendant B consented to the above solicitation and then, around April 29, 2012, at the fenced room on the first floor of the new officer, and at the middle examination in February 2012, and at the middle examination in February 1st, 2012, the amount of 40 to 50 documents containing the same type of change in only a part of the academic examination problems and number, and notified F of the course and answer.

Since then, on April 30, 2012, F corrected the issue of the interim examination for the second and second grade class class class classes of the second grade class class of the second grade class of the second grade and the third class class of the second grade, and prepared a answer sheet, such as stating the same answer as Defendant B gave prior guidance, in the answer sheet, and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired in collusion and interfered with the fair test, evaluation and management of the academic performance management committee of the second grade of the second grade of 00 by a deceptive scheme.

B. On June 201, 2001, Defendant A, B, and E’s co-defendant A related to the early 1st semester of the year 2001, notified Defendant E of the problem of the education test to “F early, or reduce the scope of the expected test questions to be given,” and requested Defendant B to “F to see the problem of the education test in the above NAS car set up in the pay restaurant parking lot located in Seoul 00-Gu 00-Gu 00-gu 00-gu 00-gu 00 201.

Accordingly, Defendant B consented to the above solicitation and then on July 1, 2012, at the counseling center for the first floor higher than that of 000 and the first floor higher than that of 2012, and at the end of February 1, 2012, the amount of 30 to 40 questions, including some of the problem of study examination to be set up on the end of February 201 and the same type of change only the number, and notified F of the course of the pool and the answer.

Since July 2, 2012, F collected the question of the early test for the second and second grade class class class class class class class in the second and third class class class class class class of the second grade class, and prepared a answer sheet, such as stating the same answer as Defendant B gave prior guidance, in the answer sheet, and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the fair test, evaluation and management work of the High grade management committee of 00 by fraudulent means.

C. On June 201, 2001, Defendant A, C, and E’s co-defendant A related to the English English test at the end of February 1st, 2012 requested that Defendant E deliver the English test questions to Defendant C by changing the form of the English test questions to be written at the end of February 201, which are set up in the above consideration restaurant parking lot. Defendant E received illegal solicitation such as the entries in paragraph 3-b. On June 201, Defendant E, Defendant E, and Defendant C’s request that Defendant C deliver them only in the form of the English test questions to be drawn up at the end of June 201.

Accordingly, after accepting the above solicitation, Defendant C sent to Defendant A the issue of English test for the first semester of February 2012, which was reproduced in the paper A4 at the lower patrolman of June 2012, and the issue of English test for the first semester of February 2012 (hereinafter “instant English test issue”), and Defendant A sent to Defendant A the issue of English test that was issued to F at his own house located in Seoul 00-Gu 00, 1707 Dong 1701 (00 Dong Dong, 00 dong, 00) around that time.

Since July 3, 2012, F entered the English test issue of this case in the classroom of 000,000 and 3th grade of February 2012, and entered the answer in the response site, and submitted it to the test supervision teacher. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with them to interfere with the fair test, evaluation and management of academic achievements management committee.

(d) Joint criminal conduct of Defendant A, B, and E related to the interim examination for study in February 2, 2001, which is conducted in February 2, 201;

On October 2012, Defendant A received an illegal solicitation from Defendant E to the effect that “the problem of the study test is changed in advance,” such as before Defendant E, and at around that time, Defendant A sent F to the Sundays immediately before the interim test is conducted at a 000 high-level indoor smoke room, and asked Defendant B to guide the problem of the study test.”

Accordingly, Defendant B consented to the above solicitation and then, around October 7, 2012, at the fenced room on the first floor of the new officer, and at the middle examination in February 2, 2012, adjusted the number of 30 to 40 questions, including some of the academic examination problems to be set up in the middle examination in February 2, 2012, and the same type of problems changed only by the number, and notified F of the course and answer.

Since then, on October 8, 2012, F corrected the problem of the interim examination of the second and second grade class class classes of the second grade class class of the second grade class of the second grade and the third grade class of the second grade, and written an answer in the answer sheet, such as stating the same answer as Defendant B gave prior guidance, and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired in collusion and interfered with the fair test, evaluation and management of the school performance management committee of the second grade of the second grade of the year of 00 by fraudulent means.

E. On December 201, 2001, Defendant A, B, and E’s co-defendant A, who was parked in the 00 apartment complex parking lot located in Seoul 00-Gu 00-Gu 00 on the early December 2012, 201, made an illegal solicitation to the effect that “in advance the problem of study examination is changed, as in the transfer from Defendant E,” and at around 000 smoking rooms, Defendant B asked Defendant B to this end at this time. The request was made to the effect that the test is to be sent F on Sundays immediately before the final test is conducted.”

Accordingly, Defendant B consented to the above solicitation and then, around December 9, 2012, at the fenced room on the first floor higher than new official, and at the end of February 2, 2012, the amount of 30 to 40 questions, including some of the academic examination problems to be set up in the end of February 2, 2012, and the same type changed only the number, and notified F of the process and answer.

Since then, on December 10, 2012, F made an answer to the final examination of the end of the second-year class in the class of 000, 2000 and 3th-year class of 2, 2012, such as stating the answer that Defendant B gave prior guidance, and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the fair test, evaluation and management of the academic performance management committee of 00 higher level of 00 by fraudulent means.

F. On April 15, 201, Defendant A and Defendant A related to the Korean Language Examination in March 1st 2001, the first semester of 2001, issued an illegal solicitation to the effect that Defendant A informed Defendant E of the issue of Korean language test, and responsible and helps F to take full responsibility for the three-year Korean language test. On April 27, 2013, Defendant A sent an issue of Korean Language Test in March 1st, 201, which was parked in the parking lot of the Dandong-dong in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Guro-gu, Seoul, and issued to F, issued an answer to the question of Korean Language Test in March 1st, 201 (excluding cultural and social class questions and problems, and excluding cultural and social class questions and 2 questions), and suggested F to answer the question.

Since May 2, 2013, F lists the issue of the Korean language test for the third and the first semester in the classroom of 000Da 000 and 3th and 9th grade on May 2, 2013, and entered the answer as it is in advance and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired in collusion and interfered with the fair test, evaluation and management of the academic performance management committee.

(g) Co-principal activities of Defendant A, D, and E related to the Korean Language Examination for the end of the first semester of March 200 and 2013;

On April 15, 2013, Defendant A received illegal solicitation, such as the entry in paragraph 3-f. From Defendant E, at the above 00 main point on June 2013, Defendant A asked Defendant D to deliver the questions of the Korean language test that was drawn up, and asked Defendant D to deliver the questions of the test. Defendant D consented to the above solicitation, and then put the issue of the Korean language test at the school room of the third year and the end of the first semester of the third year with a fixed answer to Defendant A.

Accordingly, Defendant A parked in the above 00 apartment complex 8 parking lot around June 30, 2013, delivered to F the issue of Korean language test to F, and ordered F to suggest the answer.

Since July 4, 2013, in the classroom of 000, 000, 3th 9th 2013 to the end of the 3th 1st Semesters, F added the question of Korean language test to the end of the 3nd 1st Semesters, entered the answer as it is in advance, and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with each other to interfere with the fair test, evaluation and management of the academic performance management committee of 00 higher level by fraud.

(h) Joint criminal conduct of Defendant A, D, and E with respect to the Korean Language Examination for the Second Semesters of March 2001, 201;

On April 15, 2013, Defendant A received illegal solicitation, such as the statement in paragraph 3 (f) from Defendant E, and requested Defendant A to “as the problem of Korean language test is necessary and the problem is to be delivered, because he talks with Defendant D at the above 00 main points in September 2013, 2013, and Defendant D at a low time.” After Defendant D consented to the above solicitation, Defendant D sent Defendant A the issue of Korean language test in the third-year class 2 semester, which indicates a good answer at the school office of the 000th following day.

Accordingly, around September 15, 2013, Defendant A parked on the road 2 to 3 km away from the dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-side side at the above 00 apartment complex 8 parking lot around September 15, 2013, issued F a Korean language test question, and ordered F to answer the question.

Since then, on September 16, 2013, F raises the issue of Korean language test for the third and second grade classes in the class of 000, 000 and 9 of the third and second grade classes, and entered the answer as it is in advance and submitted it to the test supervisor. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired in collusion and interfered with the fair test, evaluation and management of the academic performance management committee of 00 and the academic performance management committee.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A, B, and D's respective legal statements 1. The defendant C and E's partial legal statements 1. The witness Q's protocol of statement 1. The police officer's protocol of statement 00

1. Records of each recording, each examination question paper and answer sheet, each guidelines for the performance of the management of academic achievements and Appendixs, records of seizure, seizure records, seized records, photographs of 3 places, such as places for delivery of cash, such as records of study, records of search and seizure, records of seizure, photographs of seized articles, records of academic performance management, etc. of 00 high school in 2013, records of internal identification by students suspected of non-

1. Each internal investigation report (the sequence 1, 11, 19), and each investigation report (the same sequence 20,24,27,29, 29, 43, 54, 71);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. In the case of Defendants A and B1, each of which constitutes a breach of trust: Each of them interferes with business activities under Articles 357(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment): Articles 314(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment)

B. Defendant C.

Articles 314(1) and 30 (Selection of Fines)

C. Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act of Defendant D’s Republic of Korea (Selection of Fines)

D. Defendant E1’s giving of property in breach of trust: Comprehensively interfering with each business affair under Article 357(2) and (1)(2) of the Criminal Act: Articles 314(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant A

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 (A) of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment for Concurrent Crimes as provided for in the Crimes of Interference with Business listed in the Crimes of Interference with Business (Aggravated Punishment for Concurrent Crimes)

B. Defendant B

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 3-5(e) of the Judgment with the most severe punishment for the crime of interference with business as stated in the crime of interference with business in the preceding part of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant D

Article 37 (A) Articles 38(1)2 and 50(A) of the Criminal Act (A) (A) No. 3-4 of the Judgment No. 50 heavier than that of the crime of interference with business as stated in the crime of interference with business as stated in the preceding part

D. Defendant E

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 3-h of the Decision with the most severe punishment and punishment)

3. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant C, D).

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

4. Suspension of execution (Defendant B);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

5. Additional collection (Defendant A and B)

Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Code

Judgment on Defendant C, E, and their defense counsel’s arguments

1. As to the assertion that Defendant C’s conspiracy relation is not constituted

A. Summary of the argument

Although there is a fact that the Defendant gave up the question of the English test of this case to A, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have conspiredd with A inasmuch as he had been aware of the fact that the entire issue of the English test of this case was leaked to F without any transformation. Furthermore, even if the Defendant had leaked the issue of the English test of this case by deception from A, it cannot be said that there was a Defendant’s functional control over the crime of interference with business as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. Determination

1) According to A’s prosecutor’s statement, etc., according to A’s investigation agency and this court’s testimony, the Defendant’s statement, etc. was acknowledged as having heard from A that the Defendant would change only the five to six questions of the English test of this case, and then show to A’s students of the English Institute operating the English. However, the English test of this case was conducted on July 3, 2012, ① February 1, 2000, the English test of this case was conducted on July 3, 2012. The time when the Defendant sent the English test of this case to A was 6,00 before the said test was conducted. ② In addition, the Defendant refused the English test of this case two times from A, but all refused the test of this case, and did not change the English test of this case to the order of the English test of this case, ③ The English test of this case was conducted on the one hand without impeding the police’s request.

(4) Furthermore, as long as the English examination problem of this case, which was leaked to A under the above recognition, was written as it was in the English examination for the end of the second year and the end of the first semester, the defendant cannot be deemed to have made an essential contribution to the crime of interference with business in this part.

3) Therefore, in full view of the above facts and circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court (hereinafter referred to as "each of the evidence in this case"), it is reasonable to deem that the defendant has fully recognized that the defendant had already known that the English examination problem in this case may be leaked without any alteration at the time of the formation of the English examination question, and as such, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conspired with A, etc. for the crime of interference with the business in this part by divulging the English examination problem in this case according to the implied agreement with A, and thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

2. As to the assertion that Defendant C’s business obstruction attempted or interfered with the negligence business

A. Summary of the argument

Under the recognition that some of the English examination issues of this case at the time are offered to the students of the English Institute, the English examination issues of this case were presented to A, but unlike the expected results, A sent the whole of the English examination issues of this case to F, thereby interfering with this part of this case. Therefore, the defendant's act of divulging the English examination of this case constitutes an attempted interference with business or interference with negligence, which is not intended to be punished under the Criminal Act.

B. Determination

However, as seen above, as long as the Defendant could be deemed to have fully aware of the circumstances that, at least at the time of opening the English test question of this case to A, the leakage of the test problem of this case would lead to the occurrence of a result that impedes the fair test, evaluation and management of the academic performance management committee, and even if the Defendant did not recognize the specific process or result of the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, the Defendant’s perception and the actual occurrence of the result should be deemed to conform to the elements of the crime of interference with business within the scope of the crime of interference with business. Accordingly, this part of the crime of interference with business should not interfere with the Defendant’s intentional act or liability for interference with business. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.

3. As to the assertion that there was no consideration or illegal solicitation of Defendant E

A. Summary of the argument

Although there is a fact that the defendant paid a total of KRW 20 million to A as shown in the attached list of crimes, it does not make an illegal solicitation to the effect that the defendant is merely a loan that the defendant has lent to A individually, and that the defendant has not made an illegal solicitation to instruct A to leak examination problems to improve his/her father F's sexual performance.

B. Determination

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each of the evidence of this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant delivered a sum of KRW 20 million to A in return for the illegal solicitation that the defendant leaked the examination problem of KRW 000 and gave guidance to F. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

1) From the investigative agency to this court, A received illegal solicitation as stated in its reasoning from the Defendant, and made F direct examination questions to the Defendant, or had B instruct F, and in return, given the Defendant a total of KRW 20 million cash issued from the Defendant, and gave B a part of the said request. However, each of the above statements is consistent and very specific in the main parts of the request, including the contents of solicitation, the date and place of receiving money and valuables, and the details and methods of outflow of the problem. As such, it is difficult to readily dismiss its credibility in that A did not have any reason to make a false statement that he received money and valuables in return for an illegal solicitation at risk of considerable disadvantage, such as the loss of teachers and staff due to criminal punishment.

2) In addition, in the police, B stated that the source of the money was the Defendant at the time when B received the money for personal guidance from A, and that F failed to enter the university and college, and that “B was bullying by continuously transmitting text messages to return the money issued by A,” and that there was a statement that there was a confirmation of text messages of the same content, thereby supporting A’s respective statements.

3) Furthermore, the Defendant, as seen above, did not receive a loan certificate from A, or did not enter into an agreement with A on the period of repayment, in the process of delivering cash worth KRW 20 million in total to A. Moreover, the Defendant, instead of a simple method such as account transfer, provided that A prepared cash and carried out it closely to A. Even if considering the relationship between teacher and parent, it is very exceptional in itself, and there is no particular circumstance that A may borrow money from the Defendant at the time, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.

4) Furthermore, according to the legal statement of Q Q, a teacher of 000 Q, the Defendant, as data on sexual manipulations in Q Q Q, the Defendant, along with each recording file (hereinafter referred to as “each recording file of this case”) that contains the contents of informing the Defendant’s his/her his/her his/her his/her father of the issue of Korean language test three times at each time and at each place, together with each recording file (hereinafter referred to as “each recording file of this case”). Although the Defendant explains to the effect that he/she voluntarily prepared the said statement of money and valuables, it also goes against common sense and empirical rule.

4. As to the assertion that Defendant E was not involved in the leakage of the test problem, the summary of the claim

The Defendant did not make an illegal solicitation to request the leakage of testing problems to A, and the Defendant’s son and wife also received after-school guidance from A and B, etc. The Defendant’s son and wife also did not prepare an interim examination of 000 persons and an answer letter to the weather examination by the examination problems and answers that have been leaked through A, etc. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be said to have taken part in the Defendant’s crime, such as A, etc., which interfered with the affairs of the School Records Management Committee by fraudulent means by divulging the testing problem of 00 persons.

B. Determination

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, the defendant solicited A to disclose the examination issue as stated in its reasoning, and accordingly, the defendant knew the examination issue to A along with the dynamic teacher and notified F of F of F, and prepare and submit an answer sheet for the interim examination of 000 square meters and the final examination, and the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant conspired with A, etc. and interferes with the work of the School Records Management Committee with A, which is 00 and that it interferes with the work of the School Records Management Committee. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

1) consistently from the investigative agency to this court, A consistently stated that, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to provide guidance by leakage of examination questions for F, as stated in its reasoning, A has consistently stated that he, C, and D directly provided F with the examination questions set up by him, C, and D, and that he/she provided F with the guidance through F, and that each of these statements is highly reliable. In addition, B, C, and D are consistent with this and did not refuse A’s repeated request from the investigative agency to this court, to cause the leakage of examination problems or cause the F to personally provide guidance, and as stated in its reasoning, A did not refuse to comply with A’s repeated request from the investigative agency to this court. In addition, there is no reason to believe that each of these statements is highly reliable in that there is no reason to believe that B, etc., not only the consistency and body nature, but also the above B, etc., is subject to serious honorary prosecution and criminal punishment as a teacher.

3) Most of all, according to the recording file of this case in which F recorded the situation at the time when the above issue of Korean Language Examination was leaked from A three times, A is allowed F to repeatedly read the issue of the Korean language test that it acquired at each port date and at each place, and the answer thereto. Examining the contents of the recording file, it is difficult to see that A et al. merely interfered with F’s after-school guidance as alleged by the Defendant. In other words, at the time, it is inevitable that F would not have any more than 85 points" or “80 to 85 points.” On the other hand, it appears that the Defendant, as the above, did not have any reasonable ground for the aforementioned Defendant’s participation in the investigation process, in light of the fact that the above statement of this case was submitted to F’s investigative agency to avoid any doubt about the increase of points, he could not be seen as being directly related to the investigation process of this case, and that Q.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than seven years and not more than six months;

[Offense subject to Application] Misappropriation

[Determination of the type] Class 1 (less than 30 million won) of the misappropriation Acceptance of Misappropriation / None of the factors to reduce : No factors to mitigate : Aggravation : In the case of conducting illegal business operations in relation to Acceptance of Misappropriation

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Aggravation ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months)

[Disposition of Multiple Crimes] Since the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the crime of interference with business in the holding that the sentencing criteria are not set, each crime of taking property in breach of trust and the crime of interference with business are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit shall be set at the lower limit of the scope of sentence according to the sentencing criteria of the crime of taking property in breach of trust

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for eighteen years and six months;

In relation to E, the Defendant, who was a parent of 00, experienced a sense of responsibility for his improper wife, and experienced a brupted test problem, and received money and valuables provided by E during the process, and the Defendant appears not to have actively demanded money and valuables or planned to leak the test problem. Furthermore, the Defendant is a primary offender. Furthermore, the Defendant appears to have committed a serious reflective attitude, such as provokinging his mistake from the beginning of the investigation, and actively cooperating with the investigation. Furthermore, while the Defendant is not in a state of health due to high blood pressure, pulmonary and heart disease, and symptoms such as cerebral tensions, it is true that not only the Defendant’s family members, but also the same teachers working together with the Defendant have faithfully worked as a teacher for about 30 years, and it is true that the Defendant has been able to take advantage of the Defendant’s wife or to fully cooperate with the investigation.

On the other hand, the Defendant, as an teacher of a scenic private high school, should perform his duties in an integrity and fair manner without any suspicion. However, despite the fact that the Defendant received illegal solicitation from his parents about the divulgence of examination problems and received money and valuables in consideration of the occurrence of examination problems, and thus, the nature of the crime is very poor. Furthermore, the Defendant’s criticism is extremely high in that he demanded school teachers who have difficulty in refusing to request the examination due to the location of the Defendant’s school or personal personal research in order to achieve the purpose of the crime, or to take part in the instant crime by providing money and valuables. Furthermore, the Defendant received a large amount of 10,000 won in total five times through the instant crime of breach of trust, and thus, it is inevitable for the Defendant to have continued to commit the instant crime of spreading examination problems over eight times a year and six months, and thus, it is clear that the Defendant’s awareness that the instant crime of spreading examination problems has been seriously detrimental to the general public’s reputation and trust in the instant case, and thus, it is not clear that the instant crime of spreading and public interest.

However, in determining the specific punishment against the defendant, the conditions of the sentencing revealed in the trial process of this case and the above sentencing guidelines were set and the level of punishment in the existing similar cases were taken into consideration, even in addition to the main circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the defendant as seen earlier.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than seven years and not more than six months;

[Offense subject to Application] Misappropriation

[Determination of the type] Class 1 (less than 30 million won) of the misappropriation Acceptance of Misappropriation / None of the factors to reduce : No factors to mitigate : Aggravation : In the case of conducting illegal business operations in relation to Acceptance of Misappropriation

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Aggravation ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months)

[Disposition of Multiple Crimes] Since the crime of taking advantage of breach of trust and the crime of interference with business in the holding that the sentencing criteria are not set, each crime of taking advantage of trust and the crime of taking advantage of trust are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the lower limit shall be based on the sentencing criteria set out in the sentencing guidelines, and the upper limit shall be based on the applicable sentences.

C. Determination of sentence: The defendant 2 years suspended in the 8th month of imprisonment is also the teacher of the private high school responsible for the education of students and the formation of correct personality, and even if he/she conducts the test, evaluation and management affairs in an integrity and fair manner, he/she receives money and valuables in return for the leakage of the examination issue four times or more from his/her parents and school teachers, and then the leakage of the examination issue to a specific student. Thus, the nature of the crime is very poor. Furthermore, due to the crime of this case, the fairness and the purchase of the school affairs of high school, the purchase of the school affairs of this case, and the public trust in society, as well as the victims and teachers, many students and parents, and the parents of students and parents.

The same applies to this case.

However, on the other hand, the Defendant, as a one-year university’s first-class teacher, has assisted the Defendant to be employed as a school teacher at 000 or higher level. When the principal of the next 00 higher level assistant principal at the time received a request from A to guide a specific student, the Defendant did not refuse to commit each of the instant offenses and received money and valuables provided as compensation for the crime, and the Defendant did not actively plan to leak the examination problem or demand money and valuables. In addition, in the case of the Defendant, the type of questions similar to the examination problem should be applied to the student. In addition, the Defendant did not have any questions similar to the examination problem in question, and the amount of the fee was relatively smaller than 4 million won, and the circumstances leading up to the crime, such as the fact that the individual rehabilitation procedure is proceeding with the stock investment failure, and it appears that the Defendant continued to have contributed temporarily to giving a certain amount of money for 30 years after being given notice of his or her ability to give a large number of pharmacologic treatment, etc.

Therefore, in light of all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of this case, the above sentencing guidelines, and the level of punishment in the previous similar cases, the defendant should be suspended from the execution of the sentence only once more than the sentence imposed by the sentence imposed by the defendant, and the above sentence was determined as above.

3. Defendant C

(a) The scope of punishment: A fine not exceeding 15 million won;

B. Determination of sentence: In this case where the sentencing guidelines are not prepared for a fine of seven million won: the Defendant also committed an excessive error, such as receiving illegal solicitation and leakage of examination problems as an teacher of an private high school. Furthermore, despite the degree that the social harm caused by the instant crime cannot be overlooked, the Defendant appears to have a strong reflective attitude, such as forcing the Defendant to commit the instant crime up to this court until this court, but the Defendant appears to have a strong attitude, on the other hand, even though the Defendant was a first offender, and the Defendant appears to have a reflective view as he did, such as taking a misunderstanding of his depth with the Defendant who leaked examination problems as an teacher from this court to this court without permission. In addition, the Defendant again referred to as “the next assistant principal” to the effect that he would be informed only of the types of problems A, and the Defendant could not have been able to receive any inconvenience for 10 years from the beginning of the instant crime, but did not seem to have been able to have been able to receive any inconvenience from the Defendant’s criminal act for 6 years.

Therefore, the punishment was determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of this case, the level of punishment in existing similar cases, etc., which are disadvantageous or favorable to the above defendant.

4. Defendant D

(a) The scope of punishment: Fines not exceeding 20,000 won;

B. Determination of sentence: In this case where the sentencing guidelines are not prepared, the defendant is also a teacher of an private high school, and the defendant has received illegal requests from his parents and school teachers, and has leaked two times or more, and thus, the crime is more serious. Furthermore, as the social harm caused by each of the crimes of this case is serious, the request for public interest to eradicate it is inevitable to punish the corresponding punishment.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant shows a strong attitude of reflection, and there has been no history of punishment for that reason. In addition, as the defendant's motive and the defendant's 36-year term, which had been trying to assist as a regular teacher at the time of being employed as a regular teacher, he did not refuse the request, and actively responded to the necessity of examination due to the reason that A was unable to refuse it, and he did not intend to commit the crime of this case. In addition, there was no benefit from the crime of this case, which he acquired by death from the beginning. Furthermore, the defendant was in a separate position with his wife, and there is also a position where the 95-year old old mother who suffers from the aging such as dementia is in need of support.

Therefore, the punishment was determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of this case, and the level of punishment in existing similar cases, which are disadvantageous or favorable to the above defendant.

5. Defendant E

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than seven years and not more than six months;

【Offense subject to Application of Misappropriation】

【Determination of Type of Breach of Trust and Gifting Misappropriation> Type 1 (No more than 50 million won)

[Special Mitigations] Reductions: None, Aggravations: affirmative evidence

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Aggravation ( Imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than one year)

[Multiple Crimes of Misappropriation in the holding that the sentencing guidelines are not set. Since each crime of Misappropriation and the crime of interference with business are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit shall be set according to the lower limit of the sentencing criteria in the crime of Misappropriation in which the sentencing guidelines are set, and the upper limit shall be set according to the sentencing criteria in which the sentencing guidelines are set.

(c) Determination of sentence: Ten months of imprisonment; and

In addition, the Defendant was the first offender, the front appearance of the instant crime was revealed with the Defendant’s information. Also, due to the instant case, the Defendant had a 1 South knife of a minor who is in need of the care of her husband and her mother, and the result of the knife of her husband in preparation for university admission is treated with 0 points, etc. In addition, it is sufficient that not only her own, but also her family members are suffering from difficult pain for a considerable period of time in the future. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s health condition is not good, such as the Defendant being diagnosed of the Amamam cancer at the present time, and the blood her mother is frequently viewed due to the type of her husband and her mother, and the bnife of the bnife is close to or some of the bnife circumstances with the Defendant, such as having a minor 1 South knife who is in need of the care of her mother.

On the other hand, however, the crime is very poor in that the Defendant provided money and other valuables to a senior high school teacher who attends his school by improving his or her husband and wife’s inner organ and raising his or her result favorable to the university entrance, along with an improper solicitation to request his or her husband and wife to leak the examination problem. Moreover, the Defendant appears to have provided money and other valuables actively with illegal solicitation, and the amount of money and other valuables provided is not more than 20 million won in total, and the examination problem has been leaked more than 1 year and 6 months in parallel with the rest of the co-defendants, and thus, the crime is more serious because it is not only more than 0 times to have the Defendant make statements to the other co-defendants, such as test, evaluation and management of high school and social confidence in him or not, but also to have his or her own attitude toward the victim and his or her parents, such as the victim’s self-conception of the circumstances corresponding to his or her own in-depth criminal investigation process.

However, in determining the specific punishment against the defendant, the following factors were taken into account even in addition to the main circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, such as all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of this case and the set of the sentencing guidelines.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges of the presiding judge 000

Judges 000

Judges 000

1) However, Article 30 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the part of the property in breach of trust as stated in the judgment of Defendant A.

2) Of the evidence list Nos. 29, evidence records 1,578-1,58 of the investigation report refers to evidence records 1,588 pages.

A person shall be appointed.