Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal shall be determined to the extent that the grounds for appeal specified in the grounds for appeal are supplemented, after the deadline for submitting a statement of reasons for appeal by the defense counsel.

In fact, on October 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) ordered the Z to deliver well the fact that the candidates falling short of the government were X to the members of K corporation (hereinafter “K”); and (b) did not instruct the Z to order “X candidates to enter within three times from the final interview.”

In addition, the Defendant did not complete the calculation of the exchange scores of the members of the executive recommendation committee at the time of converting the interview evaluation table with the Z around October 6, 2016 at around 13:12, or the Z did not know the results. As such, there was no fact that the Defendant received a report or directed the Z to “the X candidate to enter the Z within three times the interview.”

misunderstanding Q changed the original conversion score into a true intent within the scope of his/her own authority. As such, the Z used a deceptive scheme by causing mistake, mistake, or land to Q or K’s recommendation committee for executive officers; and using the same.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The Defendant only requested the Z to deliver to the members of the K executives recommendation committee the fact that the government is X, or in order to verify whether the candidate’s interview procedure is being carried out without fail, and did not instruct the Z to revise X interview points, and the same act that the Z had to revise the conversion score of interview evaluation sheet to Q was conducted outside the control scope of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not seem to have a co-processing doctor or functional control over the Defendant.

The punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.