1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A in the first and second lower judgment is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From the time the issue of the test for the academic achievement test of this case was delivered to each school in accordance with the first instance judgment (1) legal scenarios, it is reasonable to view that the management and supervision of the test issue was conducted under the direction and supervision of the defendant A or the principal of this case, and in particular, the process of re-sealed and keeping the gambling "place of principal issue", which was first opened, in accordance with the instruction of the assistant principal.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s judgment (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) issued an instruction to re-sealed only on the outlines for conducting academic achievement evaluation as indicated in the annexed crime list Nos. 10 and 16, and there is no instruction to re-sealed the remainder of the examination. The fact that Defendant A re-sealeds the remainder of the examination is not due to the foregoing instruction, but rather because it is a teacher in charge of managing the place of the examination, which is re-sealed in order to prevent the leakage of the test site by a common sense

(B) Although the academic achievement assessment affairs of an private high school fall under the “private affairs” of the principal of the school concerned, the determination of such affairs constitutes “public affairs” of the Office of Education is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of public duties.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The court of original judgment ex officio examined Defendant A as the Seoul Central District Court No. 2010 order 662 and the Seoul Central District Court No. 2010 order 2010 order 660, respectively, and sentenced Defendant A to a suspended sentence of one year and two years of suspended execution in April and six months, respectively. Defendant A filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the court of original judgment decided to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases.

Defendant

A 1,2.2.