The judgment below

Among them, the part that interferes with the exercise of rights is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be suspended for one year, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. On June 24, 2015, G entered I’s performance evaluation scores into the NEIS (NEI; hereinafter “Age”) by modifying the I’s performance evaluation rating from D to C, thereby obstructing the exercise of rights by abusing authority. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the time of death or obstructing the exercise of rights by abusing authority, thereby acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, when the Defendants instructed G to raise the I’s evaluation scores on the performance of art, the Defendants could have anticipated that the I’s results were modified and input.

As can be seen, the intention of the modification, such as electronic records, is recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the joint principal offender or intent.

2. The lower court’s determination as to the copy of an electronic record, etc., was based on the following facts: (a) on June 2015, when G had received a request from Defendant B for the I to enter I’s performance evaluation scores, the Defendants did not know of the Defendants’ performance evaluation scores; and (b) on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendants had the intent of joint processing with the intent to make use of G with the intent to make the Defendants known that electronic records had already been prepared at the time when G had ordered the Defendants to make the performance evaluation results of the I; and (c) on June 2015, whether the age was entered, it is difficult for the relevant teacher or assistant principal to understand them before the teacher in charge’s speech.

It can not be concluded otherwise, and it is judged not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below by comparison with the records, this part of the judgment of the court below is for the same reasons as the judgment below.