The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The facts charged in the instant case [The facts charged in the principal) is a teacher of Chigh School operated by the school juristic person B from March 1985 to the school juristic person B, and is currently in English and teachers. D was in office from March 2010 to December 2010, and C was in office as C High School English and fixed-term teacher from March 2013 to January 2017.

C High School announced the regular recruitment of teachers by December 5, 2016, and received the application from January 2, 2017 to May 5 of the same month. Around January 7, 2017, the C High School published the last successful applicant on January 25, 2017, after conducting written examinations, around January 10, 2017, document screening, around January 11, 2017, and interview on January 12, 2017. D High School supported C High School 2017 to employ regular teachers.

The standard of document screening for each curriculum of the regular teachers of the C High School was determined through the curriculum meeting and approved by the C High School E, and the C High School Foundation B decided to employ the regular teachers of the C High School through the B Council meeting on the recommendation of the principal E.

On December 29, 2016, the Defendant, F, G, H, I, J, and K, a teacher in the English language of C High School, were voting to set up 10 marks based on the standard of the regular teacher recruitment and the examination of documents, in order to set up the number of points 10 points in the English language of C High School and C High School, 2 points in the college mountain, 2 points in the major calculation, 2 points in the career calculation, 2 points in the career calculation, and 3 points in the language performance.

According to the above review guidelines on December 29, 2016, the Defendant thought that D having friendship with the Defendant could not pass the document review, and that D would not pass the document review. The Defendant changed its draft review guidelines to allow D to pass the document review.

On January 2017, the Defendant did not notify E of the draft of the review criteria by English and subject in the principal of C High School on the fact that the draft of review criteria by English and subject was dealt with by voting, and the Defendant did not overlap with the common standards from E. In English and subject, it does not overlap with E.