The judgment below

The parts concerning Defendant C and D shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

C. A fine of 7,00,000 won, Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C (Definite misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts did not recognize the fact that the keyboard was leaked by Defendant A, and thus, the intention of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not recognized. Even if Defendant A had awareness of the relationship with the question of setting the contents and the question, even if Defendant A had awareness of the relationship with the issue of setting the examination, Defendant C cannot expect the waiver of the examination or the failure to faithfully state his answer in the situation where the issue was leaked regardless of Defendant C’s intent. Thus, Defendant C does not have a possibility of expectation of lawful act. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged in this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court found Defendant C guilty, was erroneous. 2) The punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant,

Defendant

D (In fact-finding, misunderstanding of facts) 1) Since Defendant D did not recognize the fact that the keyboard was leaked by Defendant A, Defendant D’s intentional act of obstruction of the performance of official duties is not recognized. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the instant facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court convicted Defendant D of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the grounds of appeal by Defendant C’s ground of appeal 1) Summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant A is the Defendant C who applied for the part of the open screeningO at the place of payment around July 13, 2012.