208Do5319 (a) Interference with business

B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

(c) Preparation of qualification specifications and private documents;

(d) Exercising private documents prepared for qualification appearance;

(e) Misappropriation;

(f) Forgery of private documents;

(g) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(h) Property in breach of trust;

(i) Offering of bribe;

(j) Disclosure of official secrets.

1.(a)(b)(c)(d)(i)(j);

FE, E

Seoul Residential LoDIE DIDS

(In the course of the detention house)

Reference domicile Seoul IDE DED

2. (f) .h. H.

E - - If:

Housing EDT (in the number of detention houses, during the Detention House)

Seoul basic domicile

3.2

I This Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (OI);

Residential Gangwon LDDD

Gangwon-won DIMFS ONLINE SCITRS on Reference domicile

4.(b)

Maximum D (TRETE) II

Seoul,

Jeonnam of the original domicile

Defendants

Attorney Park So-young (Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1)

Law Firm (For Defendant Yellow Law Firm)

OTI, this, this, yellow, leap, leap;

Male, gam, Park, Park;

Attorney Lee In-bok (for defendant Lee n, Ba-su)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2008No602 Decided May 30, 2008

August 21, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant Yellow and the number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence each 70 days in the number of detention days after the appeal.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of interfering with the business of the president of the Gyeonggi University on the ground that the defendant, who adopted the evidence and recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, submitted a resume stating false academic background, thereby obstructing the teaching appointment of the president of the Gyeonggi University by fraudulent means. In light of the records, such fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence selection or fact-finding, which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, and the lower court did not err by violating the rules of evidence selection as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the aforementioned grounds of appeal cannot be a legitimate

3. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the employment evidence of the defendants, and found that the defendants were prepared by abnormal methods, such as the above sexual certificates, school attendance certificates, etc., at least at the time when the defendants submitted the application for the candidate for the school inspector's scholarship with the above academic certificates, etc. Nevertheless, the defendants' submission of the application for the candidate for the school inspector's scholarship accompanied by the academic certificates, school attendance certificates, etc. of this case by deceptive means, and found the defendants guilty of all the facts charged against the defendants. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and determination are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and each part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee

Justices Kim Young-ran

Justices Lee Hong-hoon