The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The decision of this court on the grounds of appeal, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant did not consider the test answer transmitted by F, an accomplice, and passed the next test according to the defendant's real force, so there was no commencement of the crime of interference with business), and unfair sentencing. 2.

A. (1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of interference with business by deceptive means means means that an offender misleads the other party as well as makes him/her use of a deceptive scheme so as to achieve the purpose of the act. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and if the propriety or fairness of the business is hindered, the crime of interference with business is established even

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on January 17, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1721, Mar. 25, 2010; 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). (2) The Defendant, in collusion with E, F, etc., an accomplice, has conspired to transmit the Defendant’s answer to the examination using Kakaoxax to order and submit the Defendant’s answer to the examination, and then, he/she has been urged to submit the answer to the Defendant by using Kakaoxax, etc., and paid 1.8 million won in return for the actual receipt of the answer to the examination and response to the request to F. Thus, if F, an accomplice, began to conduct the examination by delivering the Defendant’s answer to the examination and response to the request to the Defendant, etc. (the victim’s danger of interference with the management of the Defendant or the Defendant’s accomplice’s answer).