(영문) 부산지방법원 2010.5.27.선고 2010노1096 판결

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 60,000 won into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be discarded, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

피고인이 시험업무 담당자들과 공모해서 성적을 조작하여 신규직원을 채용하는 것은 간접적으로는 미수협을, 직접적으로는 신규직원 채용을 위한 면접관들 및 내부결재자들을 기망하여 ▣수협의 신규직원 채용에 관한 업무를 방해한 것으로서 피고인에 대하여 위계에 의한 업무방해죄를 인정할 수 있음에도 이 사건 공소사실을 무죄로 인정한 원심판결에는 법리를 오해함으로써 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows, and the court below acquitted the defendant for the following reasons.

(1) Facts of recognition

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

(가) 피고인은 2007.10.2.경 ▣시 수협 ▤ 보궐선거에 당선되어 2007.10.4.경부터 미시 수협의 으로 근무하고 있는 자로서 공개경쟁채용 또는 제한경쟁 채용의 방식으로 직원을 임용할 권한을 가진 자이다.

(나) 수협은 애초 조합원 자녀 5명, 일반직원 5명, 경매사 2명 합계 12명을 채용하기로 하고, 기획과의 주관 하에 2008. 2. 초순경 시험공고를 한 후 같은 해 3. 16. 객관식 시험을 시행한 뒤 면접을 거쳐 같은 해 3. 28.경 최종합격자를 결정하였다. (다) 피고인은 2008. 2. 12. 09:30경 부산 서구 남부민동 ○에 있는 미시 수협 3층 실에서 '2008년도 신규직원 채용'과 관련하여 보고를 하러 온 검사실장 안C1에게 “어촌계장 양C2의 딸 양C3과 ◆어촌계장 이C4의 딸 이C5가 응시할 것인데, 잘 살펴서 합격을 시켜라, 점수가 안 되어도 어찌 하겠나, 선거 때 도와주고 했는데 그때 내가 약속을 했다” 라는 취지로 지시하였다.

(D) At the objective test that came into force on March 16, 2008, the scores of both C3 and EC5 did not reach the solar, and the AC6 reported to the effect that “the defendant should not have so much much scores,” but the defendant instructed that “I will check, examine, and pass the test.”

(E) After discussing with the head of the Suhyup Planning Division Kim C7, he explained the defendant's direction to the planning and proxy c8, c9, c9, c10, c8, c10, c8, c5, 28, c5, 33, 3, and 46, the written score of this c5, 28, 3, and the written score of this c5, and 46, the written score of both C3 is below 46, and the answer sheet is replaced and included in the interview subjects.

(F) On March 16, 2008, the GuC8 and the Gu C9 re-written the answer sheet of both C3 and EC5 from each conference room located in the Suhion Round on March 16, 2008 to exceed C11, a chief of the General Affairs Division, who is a manager in charge of intrusion tests and marking, received a confirmation sheet of C11.

(G) On March 25, 2008, after the interview, the Defendant instructed 2 children and 13 general employees to be additionally employed. Accordingly, the Defendant’s children, including the MayangC3 and MaC5, passed the first test, were fully passed through the interview.

(2) Determination

형법 제314조 제1항 소정의 위계에 의한 업무방해죄에 있어서의 ‘위계'라 함은 행위자의 행위목적을 달성하기 위하여 상대방에게 오인·착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하여 이를 이용하는 것을 말하는바(대법원 2007. 12. 27. 선고 2005도6404 판결 참조), 위에서 인정한 사실관계에 비추어 보면, 수협의 신규직원 채용시험 업무 담당자들인 기획과장 김C7, 채점 직원들인 기획과 대리 구C8, 강C9, 기획계장 최C10이 양C3과 이C5의 답안지를 교체함으로써 미수협 채용시험에 합격시킨 것은 검사실장 안C1을 통한 피고인의 부정한 지시에 따른 결과일 뿐이지 피고인의 행위에 의해 위 시험업무 담당자들이 오인·착각 또는 부지를 일으킨 결과가 아니고, 이와 같이 신규직원 채용권한을 갖고 있는 피고인이 위 시험업무 담당자들을 교사하고, 위 시험업무 담당자들이 모두 공모 내지 양해하여 위와 같은 부정한 행위를 하였다면 법인인 ▣수협에게 위 신규 직원 채용업무와 관련하여 오인·착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하였다고 볼 수는 없다.

Therefore, in this case, it cannot be said that there is another party who caused mistake, mistake, or site in relation to the recruitment of a new employee for consultation due to the defendant's improper instruction to the above test worker or the misconduct of the person in charge of the business following such instruction. Thus, the above misconduct by the defendant et al. cannot be said to constitute a fraudulent act in the crime of interference with business by

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.

B. Judgment of the court below

However, the above determination by the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

In relation to the crime of interference with business by deceptive means, a deceptive scheme means that an offender misleads, causes a misunderstanding, dismissal, or land to achieve the purpose of the act, and uses it. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of the interference with business, and if the risk of causing the interference with business arises, not in itself, but in cases where the propriety or fairness of the business is interfered with (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1721, Jan.

이 사건으로 돌아와 살피건대, 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 그 사실인정에 기초하여 미수협의 신규직원 채용시험 업무 담당자들인 기획과장 김C7, 채점 직원들인 기획과 대리 구C8, 강C9, 기획계장 최C10이 양C3과 이C5의 답안지를 교체함으로써 ▣수협 채 용시험에 합격시킨 것은 검사실장 안C1을 통한 피고인의 부정한 지시에 따른 결과일 뿐이지 피고인의 행위에 의해 위 시험업무 담당자들이 오인·착각 또는 부지를 일으킨 결과가 아니라고 본 원심의 판단은 정당한 것으로 수긍이 되나, 한편, 원심이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거들이 의하면, 수협의 2008년도 신입사원 채용전형은 서류전형, 1차 필기시험, 2차 면접시험의 단계별 전형으로 이루어져 있고, 서류전형에 통과해서 1차 필기시험에 합격한 사람에 한하여 2차 면접시험에 응시할 수 있는 자격이 주어지는 사실, 당시 2차 면접시험의 면접위원은 인 피고인, 상임이사 김C12, 지도상무 박C13, 신용상무 위C14, 총무과장 전C11 등 5인으로 구성되어 있었는데 위 면접위원 가운데 피고인과 전C11을 제외한 나머지 면접위원 3인은 양C3, 이C5의 1차 필기시험 점수가 조작되어 합격처리 되었다는 점을 알지 못하였던 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 조작되지 않은 필기시험 점수에 의할 경우 면접시험에 응시할 자격이 없는 양C3, 이C5를 면접시험에 응시할 수 있게 한 이 사건 점수조작행위는 면접위원으로 하여금 면접시험 응시자의 정당한 자격 유무에 관하여 오인·착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하는 위계에 해당하고, 그 위계에 의하여 이 사건 점수조작행위에 가담하였거나 또는 이를 양해한 바 없는 위 면접위원 김C12, 박C13, 위C14가 ▣수협의 신규직원 채용업무로서 수행한 면접업무의 적정성 또는 공정성이 방해되었다고 할 것이다. 따라서 검사의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as follows

Criminal facts

피고인은 2007.10.2.경 ▣시 ▤ 수협보궐선거에 당선되어 2007.10.4.경부터 ▣시 수협의 으로 근무하고 있다.

Around 09:30 on February 12, 2008, the Defendant, while working as above, instructed the head of the inspection office, who reported about the employment of new staff in 2008 from the 3rd floor of the Suhyup-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, to the effect that “I would take the examination at once by his or her husband and wife in both C2 of the heads of fishing village fraternities and his or her husband and wife in this C4, but I would like to take the examination, and he or she would have passed the examination well, and he or she would have taken the score. However, he or she attempted to do so at the time of election, but agreed to do so.”

On March 16, 2008, the Defendant again instructed the above AC1, who received a telephone report from the above AC1 that it is difficult to pass the examination scores of both C3 and EC5, which is his or her father, due to the low scores of the examination scores of both C2 and EC5, at a place of unsound, at around 16:34,208.

Then, Sc1 delivered the Defendant’s instruction that he was in charge of grading at the meeting room of the above 3rd conference room of the World Trade Organization, to Kim Jong-C7, the GuC8, the lecture9, and the lowest C10, and that he passed the above c3 and c5, and around 22:00 on the same day, Kim C7, the GuC8, the lecture9, and the highest C10, upon the Defendant’s instruction, passed the above c3 and this C5 through the c1, Kim Jong-C7, the GuC8, the lecture9, and the highest C10 to pass the c3 and c5 recruitment examination by destroying the existing answers of both C3 and this c5, and raising the points by preparing new answers and raising the points.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement in the original instance by the defendant

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution with respect to informationC1 and the GuC8;

1. Each statement made by the police officer's statement about Kim C7, the GuC8, the lecture9, the maximum C10, and C11 of each statement, each entry support statement, each entry support document type 1.C3, and thisC5, reports on successful applicants in thisC5, reports on successful applicants in the appointment of new employees, reports on successful applicants in each interview record, each interview record of bothC3 and C5, the preliminary candidates for new employees, and recommendations on personnel movement;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 314(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The crime of this case in the reason for sentencing was committed by the defendant, who is an unsatisfy consultation, committed an unlawful act in relation to the employment of new members with respect to the above veterinary consultation, and in light of the social status and role of the above veterinary consultation, it is deemed that the crime of this case was committed in a fair manner. However, there is no record of punishment or punishment for the same crime, and both C3 and C5 did not lead to an additional pass of five persons who were the initial successful applicants for the employment of limited members, and there was no damage caused by the crime of this case. In the first instance of the trial, the defendant was dismissed from office by submitting resignation and dismissed by the above C3 and C5, and the unfair result caused by this case was resolved later, and the defendant was tried in depth, and the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, etc., and other various circumstances that form the conditions for the punishment and arguments of this case such as the records and arguments of this case.