The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. 1) In contrast to D, whether the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means, and whether the Defendant’s intent to commit such crime (the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means as stated in the judgment of the court below) is an accomplice relationship, not a legally required sentence, but a combination of two or more persons’ intent to commit a crime through joint processing, and a conspiracy of intent is established even in cases where several persons are engaged in a group of opinions either successively or implicitly.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but where the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the object, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the fact through a close observation and analysis based on normal empirical rule.

(B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5220, Aug. 30, 2012), the following facts are recognized. (1) The Defendant is an open screening process conducted by the education specialist in the education specialist in the 23th Office of Education, and the 24th Office of Education specialized in the education specialist in the 23th Office of Education (hereinafter “instant open screening”).

Around July 1, 2012, when preparing for D, the Defendant heard the horses from D to the effect that “the cost to inform the matter in advance,” and consented thereto. On July 4, 2012, the Defendant received F6 issues from D through H, one’s husband, at the public university parking lot located in the new Sinju-si, Maju-si, Maju-si, and prepared an answer to the said six issues, applying for F in I, and passed F. The Defendant passed F. (2 Defendant again around July 26, 2012).