Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Status of Defendant A] The Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G High School (hereinafter “G High School”) is a teacher in charge of Hanmun-gu, and Defendant B is a head of the Information and Communications Office at the time of entry, Defendant C is a (ju) registered officer, and a person in charge of general business as a full-time officer.

[Character of the assessment of combined academic background] The Office of Education of Seoul, the Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do, and the Office of Education of Incheon City, as part of the measures to reduce private education from 2004, are conducting the national evaluation of combined academic background (hereinafter referred to as the "evaluation of academic background") on seven occasions a year for high-ranking students under the 16th Office of Education throughout the country in order to measure the level of academic achievement and career aptitude at the time of entering universities.

In order to prevent the fairness of the examination and the prior outflow of the examination, public officials in charge of academic achievement evaluation of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education classified all areas of the examination, and distributed all of them to each high school in Seoul Special Metropolitan City before the examination is sealed.

In addition, public officials in charge of academic achievement assessment of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education have received examination questions, and public officials in charge of the management and supervision of the examination issues have been published as official documents to the effect that the examination sealed by public officials in charge of academic achievement assessment of the Office of Education should not be opened or leaked before the examination.

[Joint Conduct by Defendants 2] On April 2005, Defendant B requested Defendant A, who was first aware of the introduction by the J of the first police officer at the early 1st Doz production team leader, to deduct the problem of the academic achievement evaluation cap prior to the early 2007 test site for the production of the video.

Defendant

A fails to refuse the request from the defendant B who is already aware of the fact that the above J has already provided the question before the examination, and the question of the academic achievement evaluation mother of the Office of Education and the question of explanation, hearing evaluation.