beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A served as a vice president in charge of planning and management from April 2014 to March 2016, and directed and supervised the State of General Affairs. Defendant B served as the director general of the State of General Affairs from April 2014 to February 2015, and took charge of personnel affairs, including employment of C employees.
Around May 13, 2014, C publicly announced the employment of professional staff in 2014, and received an application from around May 13, 2014 to the 23th of the same month. On May 27, 2014, the document screening was conducted from around June 13, 2014, and 36 persons were announced as successful applicants in the document screening in the area of legal experts. On June 13, 2014, on June 18, 2014 and on July 2, 2014, the last 11 persons passed the interview (executive interview) were announced on July 16, 2014.
During the aforementioned recruitment process, the Defendants were members of the 18th National Assembly immediately preceding the motive interest of the C Director D’s administrative notice at the time.
E Recognizing the fact that the F was found to fall under the criteria for screening documents in the field of legal experts prepared by the IF, the D president was interested in F's employment or not, he thought F to pass the document screening.
2. On June 11, 2014, Defendant A, who interfered with the Defendants’ business, reported the results of the document screening conducted by the F to the effect that the document screening conducted by Defendant B around June 1, 2014 [the period of experience (20 points), ② career experience (40 points), ③ year of graduation (20 points), ④ year of graduation, ④ year of finance and finance legal affairs (10 points), ⑤ year of support (10 points), ⑤ year of graduation and period of experience (67 points)] would be considered as the evaluation criteria reflecting the year of graduation and period of experience, and Defendant B would be able to see this F-written examination.”
Accordingly, Defendant B ordered G to eliminate the scores of the year of graduation (20 points) from among the document screening items, and to raise the F’s career synthetic rating from B to A.
3.2