2017 and 101 Violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act

1. A (620707 - 2)

Yangju-si

2. B (590428 - 1)

E-Government

Mar. 28, 2018

1. A person who commits a violation:

(a)be punished by an administrative fine of KRW 2,00,00 for the solicitation of teachers C, and KRW 2,00 for the solicitation of teachers D; (b) be punished by an administrative fine of KRW 2,00,00 for the solicitation of teachers D; and (c) be punished by an administrative fine of KRW 2,00 for the solicitation of teachers F and teachers G; and

2. B to a person who commits a violation:

A. An administrative fine of KRW 1,00,000 shall be imposed on the solicitation of teachers D, and KRW 1,000 shall be imposed on the solicitation of teachers E on December 27, 2016. (b) An administrative fine of KRW 1,00,000 shall be imposed on the solicitation of teachers E, and KRW 1,00,000 shall be imposed on the solicitation of teachers E on December 30, 2016. A fine of negligence shall not be imposed on the solicitation of teachers F and G in relation to each solicitation of teachers.

1. Relevant provisions

Article 53-2 (9) of the Private School Act provides that new appointment of the teachers of various levels of schools below high schools shall be made by means of an open screening process, and the qualification requirements for performing the duties and matters necessary for conducting the open screening process shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 21 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provides that "the open screening process under paragraph (1) shall be conducted by means of a written examination, a practical examination, and an interview, and other matters necessary for implementing the open screening process shall be determined by the appointing authority after deliberation by the teachers' personnel committee." Article 37-10 of the articles of incorporation of a school foundation0 educational foundation shall provide that "other matters not provided for in the articles of incorporation concerning the operation of the personnel committee shall be determined by the chairperson of the relevant personnel committee after the resolution by the personnel committee." Article 12 of the operational rules of the teachers' personnel committee of 00 high schools provides that "the teachers' personnel committee shall select and submit written examination, documents, the oral examination (on the relevant subject), the criteria for conducting an open screening process, and the

2. An offense recognized;

A. According to the overall purport of the record and examination of this case: ① A offender A requested a teacher C to the effect that around December 26, 2016, and around December 29, 2016, a teacher D to the effect that H would be able to pass the recruitment examination for regular teachers, respectively; and that C would be able to pass the selection examination for regular teachers (a teacher must reverse the statement that “A would have not received any solicitation” because he would be able to be employed later, but it is difficult to believe in light of the circumstances leading up to the reversal of the statement; ② A offender B requested the same purport to the teacher D and the teacher E on December 27, 2016; ③ A offender B requested a teacher to amend the criteria for the examination already determined to the teacher E on December 30, 2016.

B. Considering the fact that the above teachers are English teachers belonging to the English and the Curriculum Council and that the above Curriculum Council prepared the examination criteria by subject, they constitute public officials, etc. performing duties concerning personnel affairs of public officials, such as recruitment, promotion, transfer, etc. under Article 5(1)3 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (hereinafter “Improper Solicitation and Graft Act”), and the adoption of the examination criteria favorable to a specific person in order to pass a specific person constitutes an improper solicitation under Article 59 of the State Public Officials Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 55 of the Private School Act and Article 53-2(9) of the Private School Act. Thus, the above request by the offender constitutes an improper solicitation under Article 5(1)3 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

C. Since the offender is deemed to have committed each improper solicitation for H, a third party, as seen above, an administrative fine shall be imposed on each of the above acts in accordance with Article 23(1)1 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, and the amount shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the circumstances and contents of the violation.

3. An unrecognized violation;

A. Teachers F stated that “it is unreasonable to emphasize school punishment only, and rather, it is reverse discrimination.” As such, it is difficult to readily conclude that an improper solicitation was made to the effect that the violator merely made an improper solicitation to the effect that it would not have been made. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the violator was made an improper solicitation to the effect that the latter would adopt the criteria for examination favorable to a specific person so that a specific person may pass by the specified person, and there is no

B. Teachers G cannot be deemed to fall under “public officials, etc. performing duties related to the personnel affairs of public officials, etc., because they are not English teachers, not belonging to English and academic subjects,” and thus, teachers G cannot be deemed to fall under an improper solicitation stipulated in Article 5(1)3 of the Act on the Prohibition of Requests.

C. Therefore, in relation to each solicitation against teachers F and teachers G, the offender is not subject to a fine for negligence.

4. The decision shall be made as per the text for more than one reason.

Judges Kim Gin-Un