The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant, as an instructor of the “E” private teaching institute in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was able to know in advance the contents of the examination questions in each country, using the fact that the American University Admission Test (hereinafter “SAT”) administered by the U.S. Education Evaluation Institute (ETS) (hereinafter “ETS”) was conducted on the same day in each country and can be seen in advance according to the time of the examination, as an instructor of the “E” private teaching institute in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendant was able to obtain the examination in advance from the Thailand where the examination was conducted in the U.S. before it was conducted in the U.S. and to inform the students of the examination.

Accordingly, at around 19:30 on January 27, 2007 (Korean time, around 05:30 on New York time) the Defendant’s home located in SAT test in the U.S., the Defendant heard from the G applying for SAT examination conducted in Thailand on the same day, and obtained the answer and content of the part of the WT, and then made it available to the U.S. students teaching the Defendant to apply for the SAT examination in the U.S. on the Internet (H) bulletin board following the Internet run by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the management and evaluation of the TS test, which is a manager of the test by fraudulent means.

2. Although the Defendant’s gist of the Defendant’s defense in the New York on January 27, 2007, after carrying out the SAT test in New York on the Internet’s website bulletin board, there was no fact that the Defendant had received any data, such as the content related to the SAT from G prior to the aforementioned SAT test, and there was no fact that the Defendant posted the SAT test and the response note on the subsequent website Kapet bulletin board.

3. Determination

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt.