2016 Highest 2565 Business Interference

A

B

C

He/she shall institute a prosecution for a leather and Kim Min-young.

Law Firm D (private ships for all of the defendants)

Attorney E in charge

August 17, 2016

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months, by a fine of ten million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

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

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant A for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, shall be suspended. Defendant B and C shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal Historys Doz. 【Status of Persons Related to Crime

Defendant A, as the F Hospital Administrative Director and the Vice-General of G Hospital Administrative Director, shall assist the above heads of the above hospitals to manage the overall administration affairs of the hospital and serve as an ex officio interview member at the time of new employment of the staff. Defendant B as the Accounting Director of G Hospital, is a person in charge of preparing interview problems related to the employment of new staff of the accounting department, and Defendant C is a person under direct control of Defendant A as the Director of G Hospital Management. Criminal facts)

1. On June 14, 2015, Defendant A’s prior plan proposed that Defendant A be employed as a staff member of the G Hospital in order to employ his/her her her her son H as an employee of the G Hospital. Defendant A recommended the head of the school foundation I foundation having personnel authority to provide a curriculum curriculum prepared by giving the H a prior direction to the H. After that, Defendant A instructed the K Minister of General Affairs of the G Hospital on July 14, 2015 to take measures so that H may be employed with the approval of the head of the G Hospital so that he/she may recruit new staff because there is a lack of one staff member of the G Hospital in charge at the time. However, Defendant A instructed the K Minister of General Affairs of the G Hospital to take measures so that H is required to recruit new staff members. However, the L director opposed to the recruitment of new staff of the G

Nevertheless, on September 17, 2015, Defendant A made a solicitation that H may be employed as a staff member of the G Hospital to the J who visited the F Hospital, etc.

2. Public announcement of the employment of new employees of the G hospital and its progress;

On February 19, 2016, the Foundation Headquarters of the school foundation I (M Hospital) announced the public recruitment of three new employees who work as a full-time employee at the G Hospital's accounting department, the general affairs department, and the original affairs department, each of which are employees under the Private School Act. The method of screening was to select the final successful candidates through the first document screening type (or preferential treatment to university hospitals and general hospitals), the second foundation center interview at the Foundation Headquarters and the second foundation center meeting at the Foundation Headquarters after the third final interview and the fourth physical examination (limited to the final successful applicants) at the relevant hospital.

3. Until the second screening process of new recruitment of employees, Defendant A solicited H to be continuously employed by theJ as a staff member of the G Hospital. As a result, the J’s instructions issued a public announcement of new recruitment of the staff member of the Accounting Department at G Hospital on February 19, 2016. Defendant A confirmed the fact of new recruitment of employees through J·K, etc., and notified H of such fact on the website immediately after the said public announcement was registered.

Defendant A, on March 2, 2016, on which the closing of the application form (on March 3, 2016), did not take place, ordered the said K to report to the president of the G Hospital on the fact that Defendant A et al., his/her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her son applied for the new recruitment notice for the G Hospital staff, and ordered the said N to verify whether the said her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her s

On the other hand, in light of the fact that 328 applicants applied as a result of the termination of the application on March 3, 2016 and 109 to high competition rates, the above H passed the first and second interviews even though he did not have worked at a university hospital or a general hospital as stated in the employment notice.

4. Expenses incurred in employing new employees, such as outflow of problems at the third screening of new employees;

After that, in the third interview conducted by G Hospital, the Defendants prepared an interview question and an exemplary answer sheet in advance by Defendant B, who is an interview member in the accounting department, and delivered it to Defendant A, and Defendant B agreed to give the above H the highest score at the third interview, and Defendant A asked for a relatively higher score compared to other applicants for the above N and the above K to receive a relatively higher score in favor of the interview members.

Accordingly, around March 8, 2016, Defendant B notified Defendant C of the fact that the third interview problem and the best answer sheet will be leaked to Defendant A, and Defendant C sent text messages to Defendant A, stating that “I created B the expected question at G”, and accordingly, Defendant B provided Defendant A with the third interview problem and the best answer sheet to Defendant A around March 14, 2016, and Defendant A provided Defendant A with the third interview problem and the best answer sheet. Defendant A notified the above H who applied for the third interview of the said open recruitment, and sent the interview members to answer their questions.

At the same time, Defendant A made an interview survey report to the said N through the above K on the same day, and notified Defendant A’s father and wife applied for new recruitment to the G Hospital staff, passed the Foundation Headquarters interview, and Defendant B gave the highest score as 18 out of the maximum of 20 points from the third final interview conducted on March 16, 2016 to H. Accordingly, Defendant B conspired with the above third final interview conducted on March 16, 2016 to obtain the highest score among the 12 applicants, and passed the third final interview and fourth final selection by H. The Defendants interfered with the duties of new employees of the school foundation employing the victim by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's statement of 0, J, P, K, Q, R, and S;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of the provisions of Part XII to the investigation report (the confirmation report of the notice of recruitment of new staff of the G Hospital Headquarters), investigation report (the recruitment procedures of the G Hospital and the public notice of new staff of the administrative office), investigation report (the printing of data on leakage and interview problems stored in the B computer of the suspect B and the attached report), three interview papers, investigation report (the third screening interview sheet, etc.) (the interview sheet, the third screening interview sheet, etc.), interview sheet for new administrative staff of the G Hospital, interview sheet for new staff of the G Hospital, investigation report (the third screening interview sheet), job application document for employment of new staff of the G Hospital, and the third screening interview report (the third screening interview application document)

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Imprisonment option

B. Defendant B and C: Each selective fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant B and C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B and C: The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is committed by the Defendants, as seen above, by leaking interview problems in order to enable the children of Defendant A to be employed by the victim hospital, deprived of opportunities for fair competition among job applicants, and interfering with the employment of new employees of the victim hospital, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

However, the defendants are against the defendants, there is no previous conviction exceeding the same kind and fine, the defendant Eul and C did not seem to have obtained unjust profits in relation to the leakage of problems, such as interview, etc. The defendant Eul and C did not seem to have obtained a first offense and interview, the defendant Eul left 16 years, and the defendant C seems to have worked in a relatively faithful manner in the victim hospital. The defendant Eul is in a position to support the spouse, the 8 years of age and 5 children, the degree of the defendants' participation in the crime, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, occupation, personality and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime.

Judges Kim Gin-han