Defendant

Defendant

Yellow Republic of Korea (public trial), luscing, and luscing (public trial)

Law Firm LLC et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Ma2426 Decided January 23, 2019

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

Around January 29, 2018, the Defendant did not know at all about Nonindicted 2’s sexual indecent act case committed in his funeral hall, and did not contact with the question.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have any motive to induce Nonindicted 2 to resign, so there was no omission in ordering Nonindicted 1, a personnel management officer, to dispatch Nonindicted 2 to △△ branch office. In addition, the personnel management of Nonindicted 2 is a comprehensive result of service evaluation, inspection, deliberation, assignment route, etc., and it is not contrary to the principles and standards of the public prosecutor’s personnel management, including the violation of the system of posting the place of call for career inspection.

B. Legal principles

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of abuse of authority in light of the fact that the defendant, the director general of the prosecutor's office, has no general authority on prosecutor's personnel affairs, the standards and procedures for the execution of duties related to prosecutor's personnel do not specifically stipulate in the law, and that the prosecutor in charge of personnel affairs is merely an assistant who has no unique authority and role to apply the standards and participate in

C. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Whether the Defendant was aware of Nonindicted 2’s indecent act, and whether such a fact was known to the prosecution inside and outside of the Republic of Korea (the motive of the instant crime)

1) The lower court determined that, on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of the “determination on the Defendant’s assertion”, the Defendant was aware of the indecent act of Nonindicted Party 2 by himself, and that such fact was known inside and outside of the prosecution, and that the Defendant was aware of such circumstances. In addition to the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination on this part is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality in mistake

① 당심 증인 공소외 3은 이 법정에서 “조문을 갔다가 마침 조문을 하러오신 법무부장관과 피고인을 마주쳤습니다.(중략) 피고인에게 술을 많이 드셨는지 여쭈어봤는데 제대로 답변을 못하시고 말씀을 하시는데 혀가 완전히 꼬여서 무슨 말인지 제가 알아듣기 힘들었습니다. (중략) 피고인을 보니까 고개를 계속 숙이고 있어서, 중간에 고개를 떨어뜨리기도 하고 해서 (중략) 술이 너무 많이 취한 것 같아서 제가 제 왼손으로 피고인의 오른 손 손바닥 위를 잡고 있었습니다”라는 취지의 진술을 하였고, 그 자리에 있었던 공소외 4, 공소외 5의 수사기관에서의 진술도 이에 부합하는바, 예정된 만찬 및 문상의 일정에 법무부 장관을 수행하던 피고인이 상당히 술에 취해 있었음은 인정된다.

② Around December 9, 2010, Nonindicted 6, who was the inspector in charge of inspection of the Ministry of Justice, had been in contact with the Defendant’s indecent act. Nonindicted 6 instructed Nonindicted 7, the inspector in charge of inspection, to confirm the truth of indecent act by compulsion, and Nonindicted 7 requested Nonindicted 8, the inspector in charge of inspection, to the effect that he was aware of the relevant case. Nonindicted 2 had been contacted with Nonindicted 8, the inspector in charge of inspection, and did not ask Nonindicted 8, the inspector in charge of inspection, to confirm the fact of indecent act by compulsion. Nonindicted 8 did not have a clear contact with Nonindicted 8, but did not have a clear confirmation. immediately thereafter, Nonindicted 8 had Nonindicted 9 unfolded with Nonindicted 9 (this time Nonindicted 9’s shoulder, Nonindicted 8’s shoulder) “In this case, Nonindicted 8 did not have any further made Nonindicted 8’s statement to the effect that it was an indecent act by force?”

On the other hand, Nonindicted 2 did not decide on his own intention immediately after being contacted with Messen from Nonindicted 8, and told Nonindicted 11 to Nonindicted 11 of Nonindicted 1. Nonindicted 11’s report, Nonindicted 12, the Prosecutor General of △△△ District Prosecutor’s Office, and the Prosecutor’s 10 became aware of the Defendant’s indecent act. Nonindicted 11 heard Nonindicted 2, “(21 pages of investigation records)” and reported it to Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 10 called to Nonindicted 9 to Nonindicted 2, the Prosecutor General of the Ministry of Justice, “Non-Indicted 2, other than the inspector in the Ministry of Justice, in the Ministry of Justice.” Nonindicted 2 confirmed that Non-Indicted 3’s indecent act was no longer problematic (hereinafter “Nonindicted 116’s investigation records”) and that Non-Indicted 7 made a report to the effect that Nonindicted 10 was no more than the Defendant’s indecent act.

③ From March 8, 2018 to the court of the lower court, Nonindicted 6 stated to the effect that “I would like to ask the Defendant about how the truth was finished or what degree of progress was. However, I would like to ask the Defendant about whether the written indictment regarding the indecent act by the female prosecutor was in progress, and that I would like to give the Defendant the attention of drinking and drinking to the Defendant, although it was not a regular inspection. The Defendant is the same half of the Judicial Research and Training Institute at the same time, and there is a possibility that I would have talk to the Defendant in a way that I would like to confirm the simple fact, and that I would not have any person who would have to do so.” In this Court, Nonindicted 7 also stated that “I would have been able to give her attention in any circumstances,” and “I would like to give the Defendant a testimony that I would have been able to give her testimony, because I would have been able to do so, I would like to give her testimony, and I would like to do so.”

③ In a situation where Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8’s fact-finding procedure and Nonindicted 2’s report are known to the major personnel of the Ministry of Justice, including Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 13 through the intelligence, Nonindicted 6’s closure without any further verification and inspection is a result of the Defendant’s failure to conduct the fact-finding and inspection. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the fact-finding was known to the Defendant by Nonindicted 6 in view of the position and status of the Defendant, the relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 6, etc., and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the fact-finding was known to the Defendant by Nonindicted 6. As such, Nonindicted 6’s testimony is very reliable in this respect.

Therefore, the Defendant, at least on October 30, 2010 or around December 9, 2010 to April 14, 201, who started the fact-finding at the inspection room of the Ministry of Justice, is deemed to have been aware of the fact that he committed indecent act by compulsion of Nonindicted Party 2 in the funeral hall of the ▽▽▽▽▽△△ Hospital, around October 30, 2010.

④ At the trial, Nonindicted 14, the reporter of the dedicated examination, submitted a written statement to the effect that “the investigation report stating the statement of the person himself (not more than 3026 pages of the investigation record) inaccurate and distorted his own truth.” However, even according to the written statement of the trial, Nonindicted 14 heard the facts of indecent act against the Defendant from Nonindicted 8, and at the time, Nonindicted 12 was aware of the fact of indecent act by force against the Defendant. At the same time, Nonindicted 12 was aware of the fact of indecent act by force against the Defendant.” However, Nonindicted 14, who was the dedicated examination of the dedicated examination, submitted the written statement to the effect that “the investigative prosecutor divided the conversation regarding this case, and divided it, was not covered, and it was not necessary to dismiss the prosecutor’s questioning as a witness of the above investigation report, and it was not necessary to mention Nonindicted 4 as a witness of the investigation report in light of the fact that he did not mention that he did not respond to the above investigation.”

2) As to whether there is a motive for the Defendant to disadvantage in personnel affairs against Nonindicted 2

As long as the Defendant was aware of the fact that he committed indecent act by force against Nonindicted 2 and the fact that he had been aware of the members of the prosecution including Nonindicted 9, etc., and that he had been actually aware of and had been investigated by the inspector’s office, it can naturally be anticipated that if the fact of indecent act by force against Nonindicted 2 is continuously in the future organization, it would hinder the management of his position. Thus, it is sufficiently recognized that the motive to induce Nonindicted 2 to resign in a manner that gives disadvantage to his personnel affairs.

The Defendant asserts that there was no causal link that Nonindicted 2 would cover his illegality if he resigned, and thus, he did not act under such plan. However, if Nonindicted 2 resigned and thus no longer participated in the assessment of the Defendant in the organization, the Defendant would no longer be likely to threat the Defendant. Even if Nonindicted 2 does not resign, personnel disadvantage as in the instant case would, in itself, have the effect of lowering Nonindicted 2’s evaluation as a prosecutor of Nonindicted 2 in the organization as well as lowering Nonindicted 2 within the organization, thereby impairing the credibility and influence of his assertion. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

The defendant asserts that, if he was aware that he was the perpetrator, he would have taken a prompt measure to solve the problem, and that there was no unreasonable personnel who would have raised controversy, such as the counter-efluence of the parties as in this case.

그러나 공소외 2가 평검사로서 피고인을 상대로 인사상 불이익 관련 이의를 쉽게 제기하기 힘든 것은 분명하고, 따라서 피고인 주장처럼 ‘더욱 치밀하게 인사발령에 대한 정당성의 근거를 만드는 행동을 하였을 필요’도 없었을 것으로 판단되는 점, 실제로 공소외 2는 위 인사로 사직서를 제출하였다가 결국 철회하고 2018. 상반기까지 ◇◇ 소속 검사로 근무하였고(◇◇ 부임 직후인 2015. 9. 4. 부터 2016. 9. 3.까지는 육아휴직, 2016. 9. 4.부터 2017. 2. 19.까지 ◁◁지청 파견), 피고인이 검찰국장을 역임한 2017. 5. 21.까지는 별다른 인사 관련 이의를 제기한 바 없는 점(공소외 2는 ◇◇에서 실근무 1년 6월이 경과한 상태에서 자신의 건강상 이유로 한 2018. 상반기 인사이동 요청이 받아들여지지 않자 자신에 대한 인사상 불이익이 계속된다고 판단하고 2017. 9. 29. 장관 면담요청을 하는 등 구체적 행동을 하였다) 등에 비추어 피고인 위 주장도 이유 없다.

B. Whether the personnel proposal on which Nonindicted 2 was posted to △△ branch office violates the principle and standard of inspector personnel management, in particular, the career inspection and the placement system of the branch office for public offering.

In light of the detailed reasons in the part of the “determination on the Defendant’s argument,” the lower court determined that Nonindicted 2’s personnel proposal against △△ branch was practically in violation of the career inspection system corresponding to one of the principles and criteria of the public prosecutor’s personnel management. In addition to the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination on this part is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality in misunderstanding of facts.

① Since the system of posting a career inspection to the public prosecutor’s personnel committee was introduced on August 14, 199 after deliberation by the public prosecutor’s personnel committee, it is the principle and standard of the inspector’s personnel committee, which is clearly effective, as it is stated in the "Principle of Personnel Management of Public Prosecutors" (14 pages of "Principle of Personnel Management of Public Prosecutors," and 1621 pages of investigation records). According to the above Principles of Personnel Management of Public Prosecutors, three or more employees shall be placed as the chief public prosecutor of the 15th public prosecutor’s office, and the outstanding personnel in service shall be considered first of all at the time of personnel management. From the Personnel Committee of February 7, 2002 to the prosecution personnel committee of July 26, 2005, the first consideration for personnel management of the public prosecutor’s career experience in the second and second half of each year is specified.

(2) The defendant asserts that the defendant has no preferential treatment to the poor performance when he/she was employed, and no provision prohibiting the assignment of his/her career examination by the time of call at the time of call at the time of call, and that the defendant has been de facto lost, such as not giving preferential treatment to the reason that he/she was a career examination after 2010

According to the records, by actively reflecting the wishes of personnel after the commencement of the career examination of the office of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch.

In addition, the public tender notice office does not place 15 or all the 15 public tender offices (10 public prosecutors in the second half of 2015 are the 7 public tender offices, and 10 public prosecutors in the second half of 2015 were the 10 public prosecutors and the 1233 public prosecutors in the investigation records) and the relevant public prosecutors in the career service subject to the personnel examination are less appropriate. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that it is difficult to consider personnel desire due to the increase of career public prosecutors, and there is no resolution on the placement system at the public prosecutor's personnel committee for several years including August 17, 2015, or there is no resolution on the placement system at the public prosecutor's personnel committee (2 public prosecutors in the second half of 2015 including △△ branch office and △△ branch office). The above defendant's assertion is without merit.

(3) The defendant shall make arguments to the effect that there are many principles and standards of personnel administration based on the principle of personnel administration among prosecutors, and that it is virtually difficult to meet both the conflicting principles and standards.

In personnel affairs, the elements such as service performance rating, assignment channel, deliberation, disciplinary action, inspection, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and the extent to which each of the above personnel factors is considered may vary depending on person or case (see, e.g., the statement by Nonparty 1). However, considering the aforementioned personnel factors comprehensively, the principle of personnel management based on the principle of personnel management in the prosecution's personnel affairs, tendency exchange principles, career inspection placement principles, career inspection placement principles, female inspection placement principles, etc., but it is deemed that mutual complementary or preferential application may be made depending on circumstances. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that it is to allow personnel assignment that is clearly against the above principles.

As Non-Indicted 1’s statement, the Defendant asserts that there is a conflict between the principle of “the principle of continuous work restriction three times in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Office” and “the principle of “the duty of re-election on four consecutive occasions in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Office” (Non-Indicted 1) and the principle of “the duty of re-election on four consecutive occasions in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Office.” However, the Defendant’s assertion that the three consecutive times of work restriction in the Seoul Metropolitan Area Office would be in violation of the three consecutive times of service restriction principles is acceptable, and that there is a “special reason” (1620 pages of investigation record) and that there is no possibility of objectively favorable personnel assignment to the parties concerned, so there is no possibility of controversy over illegality, and there is no reason for the above assertion.

C. Whether the Defendant instructed Non-Indicted 1 to place Non-Indicted 2 to △△ branch office

The lower court acknowledged that the Defendant ordered Nonindicted Party 1 to place Nonindicted Party 2 as △△ branch office on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”. In addition to the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to see that Nonindicted Party 1, without the Defendant’s instruction, was in breach of Nonindicted Party 2 in its own judgment and decision, without the Defendant’s order. The lower court’s judgment on this part is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts.

① 공소외 2를 2015. 7. 17., 7. 19., 7. 20.에는 ▷▷지방검찰청에, 2015. 7. 22., 7. 23., 7. 27., 7. 28., 8. 3., 8. 4., 8. 7.에는 ♤♤♤지방검찰청에 각각 배치하는 인사안이 작성되었다가, 2015. 8. 9.에는 △△지청에 유임시키는 인사안이 작성되었고, 2015. 8. 12.에는 ♡♡지청, ●●●●지청에 순차로 배치하는 인사안이, 2015. 8. 13.에는 ▲▲지방검찰청, 2015. 8. 15.에는 ■■지방검찰청에, 2015. 8. 15., 8. 16., 8. 17.에는 ◆◆지방검찰청에 각각 배치하는 인사안이, 검찰인사위원회 개최 이후인 2015. 8. 18. 14:06:21경 공소외 2를 ◇◇지청에 배치하는 인사안이 작성되었다.

② 공소외 15를 2015. 7. 16. 유임시키는 인사안이, 2015. 7. 22. ▲▲지방검찰청에, 2015. 8. 4. ★★지방검찰청에, 2015. 8. 9. ▼▼지청에, 2015. 8. 12. 경력검사로서 ◇◇지청에 배치하는 인사안이, 검찰인사위원회 다음날인 2015. 8. 18. 오후 공소외 2와 맞바뀐 자리인 ◆◆지방검찰청에서 직무대리발령으로 공석이 발생한 ▷▷지방검찰청에 배치하는 인사안이 작성되었다.

③ The head of △△ branch office, around June 30, 2015, asked Nonindicted 16 to return Nonindicted 2 to the △△ branch office by phone calls from Nonindicted 17 to Nonindicted 17, and Nonindicted 17 delivered the above facts to Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2 was classified as an interest resource of the chief of the prosecution division (Investigation record 4499 pages). Meanwhile, the list of “the person who had completed the continuous service period of the Prosecutor in the second half of 2015” attached to “Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, and Do” was classified into the △ branch office of △△ branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office” (Investigation record 26085 pages pages).

④ On August 18, 2015, immediately after the Prosecutor’s Personnel Committee, Nonindicted Party 1 asked Nonindicted Party 15 to call Nonindicted Party 15, “I am the phone, and there was no reason to view the Gwangju,” and Nonindicted Party 15 asked Nonindicted Party 15 to “I am the case where I would not have been able to serve because I would have been working in the broad city because I would have worked as an attorney at the bar,” and Nonindicted Party 1 again asked Nonindicted Party 1 to “I am the sea-line “I am, I would like to go through a phone,” and at the same time, Nonindicted Party 1 asked Nonindicted Party 1 to “I am in the middle of the second half of the year, I would like to have “I am the child’s education problem,” and I am the same as “I am the children’s children’s education problem in the middle of the second half of the year, I am the same as the children’s children’s education special forest.”

부치지청은 대부분 소도시 혹은 격오지에 소재하므로, ‘자녀교육 상의 애로’는 공소외 15를 경력검사로서 ◇◇에 배치할 때부터 당연히 예상가능한 고충으로서 인사발표일에 임박해서 특별히 중요한 변동요인으로 고려해야 할 성질의 것이라 하기 어렵고, 그 고충을 지득하게 된 주2) 경위 나 내용(인사담당검사가 예정 인사발령지를 언급해주면서 고충을 듣는 것)에 비추어 매우 이례적이다(당시 ▷▷지검에 직무대리발령으로 공석이 생긴 상황이었던 점 등에 비추어, 공소외 15를 ◇◇지청보다 선호청인 ▷▷지검에 배치하면서 굳이 공소외 15에게 의사를 확인한 것은 ▷▷가 공소외 15의 인사희망/4지망 안에 포함되어 있지 않기 때문으로 판단된다).

On the other hand, in the latter part of 2015, Nonindicted 2: (a) was the central government of Seoul, the Seoul Dong division, the Sungnam, and the head of the prosecution division upon the request of the head of △△ branch; and (b) was the interested resources of the director of the prosecution division upon the request of the head of △△ branch; and (c) Nonindicted 1 did not collect any grievance related thereto from Nonindicted 2 in the course of posting Nonindicted 2 to △△. Nonindicted 1 stated that “Nonindicted 2 was deemed to have a negative effect on such personnel affairs.” In light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 stated that “Nonindicted 2 was believed to have a clear reason for such personnel affairs, Nonindicted 1 is clearly prepared.”

⑤ The Defendant, as the Director General of the Prosecution’s Office, was in charge of the first half of the year 2015 public prosecutor, and determined the assignment of Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 1 through the first half of the year 2015. Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 1 were in charge of the first regular personnel through the prosecutor’s personnel management in the second half of the year 2015. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 17 did not report the personnel proposal to the Defendant one time until August 17, 2015 at which the Prosecutor’s Personnel Committee was held, and only one time reported on the last personnel proposal.

④ around August 18, 2015, Nonindicted 17 stated that Nonindicted 2 was asked by Nonindicted 1 to report on the draft placed as △△△. According to the above statement, Nonindicted 1 reported on the personnel management to Nonindicted 17 until August 16, 2015, and it was closely discussed the personnel management-related matters, such as sending the note stating, “The details of the set-up will again be able to see within this day” to Nonindicted 17, and then sending it to the horses. However, around August 18, 2015, Nonindicted 2, who is classified as the interest resources of Nonindicted 17 (chief of the Prosecutor’s Office), was placed as △△△△, and there was no discussion with Nonindicted 17. The personnel management of Nonindicted 2, the above subparagraph (b) and (7) do not conform with the ordinary personnel management principles, and it is difficult to view it as such independent personnel management.

7) Nonindicted 16 stated that it is not consistent with the basic principle to place Nonindicted 16 at the time of the initial call, and that it is an exceptional personnel assignment (the investigation record 533 pages) and the public prosecutor placed at the time of the initial call call office is aware that Nonindicted 18 was given an order by the first call office. Nonindicted 2 stated that the personnel management of Nonindicted 2 was an unrecepted (the investigation record 456 pages). Nonindicted 19, who was transferred to the △△ branch office, stated that the personnel management of Nonindicted 2 was a proked person (the investigation record 250 pages), and Nonindicted 20 also Nonindicted 33, who did not wish to have been on the part of the initial branch office (the investigation record 250 pages), and that Nonindicted 20 was a person who was considered to have been on the part of another public prosecutor (the investigation record 1183 pages).

8. The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement

In the court of the trial, Nonindicted 1 stated in the court of the trial that “the final draft of personnel affairs after the Prosecutor’s Personnel Committee was reported to the Defendant, and there was no memory in the previous draft report,” and “the reason for memory is because there was no memory in receipt of the Defendant’s order for revision.” However, this is difficult to obtain if he first takes charge of the personnel affairs and, at the time of the preparation of the final draft of personnel affairs, made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 1 did not receive the Defendant’s order for examination or revision (in fact, Nonindicted 1 stated that there was no particular opinion about the final draft of personnel affairs by the Defendant). In addition, Nonindicted 1’s statement related to the time of reporting and confirmation of the draft of personnel affairs by the prosecution is different from that of Nonindicted 16, 21, 22, and 23, and is inconsistent with the first Defendant’s statement that Nonindicted 2

The Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that he collected the peace on Nonindicted Party 2 and confirmed such information from Nonindicted Party 24. However, until the time, there was no official document on Nonindicted Party 2, and it is not consistent with Nonindicted Party 24’s statement to the effect that “The peace is mainly collected from a major assigned position and thus it is not confirmed that it is not subject to it,” and it does not seem that Nonindicted Party 24, who worked together with Nonindicted Party 2, for a period between February 14, 2011 and May 30, 201, did not appear to have delivered Nonindicted Party 1 in detail to Nonindicted Party 2.

공소외 1은 공소외 2에 대한 세평이 객관적이고 정확한 검증을 거쳤다는 취지로 주장하면서도 이를 공식적인 세평 자료로 남기지 않았으며, 그가 주장하는 공소외 2에 대한 세평, 주4) 복무평정, 보직경로 등 각종 인사요인들은 ▷▷지방검찰청, ♤♤♤지방검찰청 등 초기 인사배치 시점부터 고려되어야 했던 것이지 공소외 2를 ◇◇에 배치하기 위하여 새로이 참작되어야 할 사유는 아니다.

In addition to the above circumstances, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the investigation process, including: (a) Nonindicted 1’s statement ( investigative agency) that read that “the Defendant did not receive the personnel instructions from Nonindicted 2” is difficult to believe, taking into account the following circumstances: (b) Nonindicted 2, who was in the same position as the Defendant in relation to the pertinent duties and was in the same position; and (c) Nonindicted 2 denied the fact of indecent act by force on several occasions or in contact with the Defendant on January 29, 2018, when Nonindicted 2 disclosed the fact that indecent act by force and personnel disadvantage on the prosecution’

Furthermore, as seen above, the instant personnel affairs were the first personnel affairs of Nonindicted Party 1 as a public prosecutor in charge of personnel affairs, and the personnel subjects were only 70 small persons, and Nonindicted Party 2, who was the party to whom the assignment was changed immediately before the personnel statement, expressed his intention of resignation immediately, etc., and there was a disturbance due to the instant personnel affairs, but at that time, it is difficult to obtain the statement by Nonindicted Party 1 that “I have no memory received instructions from the Defendant.”

3. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of detailed reasoning in the part on the “determination of the Defendant’s assertion.” Examining the lower court’s aforementioned judgment in comparison with the record, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of

4. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s abuse of authority by taking advantage of the status in which the prosecutor’s personnel authority over the prosecutor is practically exercised to exercise his authority to exercise his authority to conduct a fair and reasonable examination; (b) the public’s belief and the expectation of the members of the prosecutor’s office was brought about; (c) the motive of such serious crime was to conceal the facts of indecent act by compulsion of indecent act by force; (d) such crime is likely to cause the victims of sexual crimes in the organization to avoid or obstruct their conduct to talk about the injury; and (e) Nonindicted Party 2 suffered a disadvantage in personnel affairs due to the Defendant’s instant crime; and (e) the Defendant suffered from a long period of time, such as the degradation of honor as a prosecutor by issues irrelevant to the nature of the instant case, such as service evaluation or reputation, etc., in the course of investigation, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case do not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the punishment sentenced by the court below is too excessive.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Sung-dong (Presiding Judge)

1) Nonindicted 9 was likely to have been aware of the Defendant’s indecent act by force on another way. Nonindicted 10 notified Nonindicted 2 to Nonindicted 9 Nonindicted 10 to the △△ District Prosecutor of Nonindicted 2’s Office that Nonindicted 2 would not raise any question, the time when Nonindicted 2 came to contact with Nonindicted 8.

2) At the trial court, Nonindicted Party 1 stated to the effect that he was delivered a personnel compromise with Nonindicted Party 15’s prior prosecutor (not specified). However, in light of the fact that this is an assertion that there was no evidence at all in the statement of Nonindicted Party 1 himself and the investigative agency’s statement on four occasions, and that it was not a day after the currency of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 15, it is difficult to believe that the final personnel proposal was prepared.

3) On a daily basis, Nonindicted 17 made a statement from Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 2 that “if Nonindicted 2 is dissatisfied with his/her superior relationship, position, etc., he/she shall take childcare leave.” According to the records, Nonindicted 2’s childcare leave is used to raise his/her child immediately after having given birth to his/her superior relationship, position, etc. from October 15, 2008 to December 31, 2008; from May 30, 201 to February 29, 2012; from September 4, 2015 to September 3, 2016, Nonindicted 17 made a statement that Nonindicted 2 would be entitled to childcare leave; the first childcare leave was used to take care of his/her child immediately after having given birth to his/her superior relationship, position, etc.; the second childcare leave was used for his/her own health issues during the second half of 200 years after the issuance of his/her childcare leave to 30 years after the second half of 20 years.

4) From around 2015, female prosecutors were often disadvantaged in service assessment due to childbirth, temporary retirement, or temporary retirement for childcare (non-indicted 17’s statement of witness). In the case of non-indicted 2, the first half of the public prosecutor’s appointment was made using childbirth and temporary retirement for childcare compared to the assessment of service (no-indicted 2, 39/107, 21/10, 26/109, 33/114, 29/113, 20/114), and in particular, it appears that the assessment of service was considerably poor during nine months from May 30, 201 to February 29, 2012 (see, e.g., Investigation Record No. 5539). Such circumstance appears to be one of the factors affecting the assessment of service (the evaluation of service performance by prosecutor, amendment of the Rules No. 1539, Jan. 30, 2018).