Defendant

Final Completion

Attorney Lee Sang-hoon

The defendant shall be innocent.

On October 2, 2007, the Defendant was elected by the special election of the head of the ○○ Suhyup Cooperative, and served as the head of the ○○ Suhyup Cooperative from October 4, 2007.

Around 09:30 on February 12, 2008, the Defendant, while working as the head of the cooperative, directed Nonindicted 6 of the inspection office, who reported the “employment of new employees for 2008” at the 3rd floor of the cooperative room of ○○○○, Seo-gu, ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “land number omitted), to the effect that “I will take the examination at once by his wife Nonindicted 7 and his wife Nonindicted 8, her husband, her husband, her husband, her husband, her husband, her husband, and her husband, her husband, her husband, her husband, her husband, her husband, and her husband, and her husband, her husband, and her husband, her husband, and her husband,

On March 16, 2008, the defendant received a telephone report from the above non-indicted 6 that it is difficult to pass the examination scores of the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, who is the non-indicted 8's father, from the above non-indicted 6's father at the place of the accident at around 16:34, 2008, and instructed the above non-indicted 6 to re-examine the above non-indicted 6 to "we check, check, and pass the examination."

Accordingly, Nonindicted 6 sent the Defendant’s instruction to Nonindicted 9, 10, 11, and 12, who was in charge of grading duties at the meeting room at the meeting room at the meeting room at the meeting room on the third floor of his business, and around 22:00 on the same day, Nonindicted 9, 10, 11, and 12 at the above Nonindicted 1 and 2, in accordance with the Defendant’s instruction, passed the consultation recruitment examination by having the above Nonindicted 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 pass the consultation recruitment examination by having the above Nonindicted 6, 10, 11, and 12 pass the consultation recruitment examination by using deceptive scheme to pass the above Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 in the consultation recruitment examination.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts are recognized.

A. On October 2, 2007, the Defendant is a person with authority to appoint employees by means of open competitive employment or limited competitive employment, who was elected by a special election for the head of ○○ Suhyup Cooperative and served as the head of ○○ Suhyup Cooperative from October 4, 2007.

B. On March 16, 2008, the ○○○ Union decided to employ five children of the elementary school members, five general employees, and two certified auctioneers, respectively. On February 28, 2008, the first instance court announced the first instance trial under the supervision of the planning division, and subsequently, conducted the multiple-choice test on February 16, 2008, and then decided the final successful candidate on March 28 of the same year through the interview.

C. Around 09:30 on February 12, 2008, the Defendant instructed the head of the inspection office, who reported on the "employment of new staff in 2008" at the 3rd unit of the cooperative room of the ○○○○○○-dong (hereinafter its lot number omitted), to the effect that "Non-Indicted 6 applied for by Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 of the Mandong, Mandong, Non-Indicted 8, Mandong, Non-Indicted 8, Mandong, Non-Indicted 7, Mandong, Non-Indicted 7, and Non-Indicted 8, Mandong, Non-Indicted 8, Mandong, Mandong, and Dondong," to the effect that "at that time, he

D. At the objective test conducted on March 16, 2008, the points of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted 2 did not reach a solar, and Nonindicted 13 reported to the effect that “Nonindicted 13 should not get too far away from the points.” However, the Defendant directed the Defendant again that “I will get too away from the points.”

E. As a result, Nonindicted 13 discussed with Nonindicted 9 in the head of the ○○○ Cooperatives Planning Division, and explained the Defendant’s direction to Nonindicted 10, 11, and 12, who are grading staff, and Nonindicted 9, 11, 12, and 10 confirmed the answer sheet (the answer sheet) of Nonindicted 2 and 1, and confirmed that Nonindicted 2’s written examination score is less than 28, and Nonindicted 1’s written examination score is less than 46, and thus, he will substitute the answer sheet and be included in the visitors.

F. On March 16, 2008, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 re-written the answer sheet of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 exceeding 50 points at the conference room that is facing the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 16, 2008, and received a letter of confirmation by the chief of the General Affairs Division 14, who is the supervisor in charge of the on-site test and grading.

G. On March 25, 2008, after the interview, the Defendant instructed two children of the union members and 13 general staff members to be additionally employed, and accordingly, the children of the union members who passed the first test including Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were fully passed through the interview.

2. Determination

In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means as stipulated in Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the term “defensive means” means causing mistake, dismissal, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the offender’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6404, Dec. 27, 2007). In light of the facts acknowledged above, it cannot be said that: (a) Nonindicted 9 of the Planning Director, who is the person in charge of the examination for new personnel in charge of the examination for the employment of ○○○ Consultative Officers, and Nonindicted 10,11 of the Planning Director, who is the grading personnel, and the planning and grading personnel, replaced Nonindicted 12 of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s answer points; and (b) the passing of the examination for the employment of ○○○○○ Cooperative by means of replacing the Defendant’s unlawful instruction through the chief of the Prosecutor’s office through the Defendant’s act, and thus, the Defendant’s act did not cause mistake, dismissal, or land for the aforementioned examination personnel.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant under the latter part of Article 325

Judges Park Gyeong-chul