[1] Whether an act of selecting pure expected problems and giving them to an examinee or his/her lessons may interfere with the conduct of the test (negative)

[2] Whether the crime of interference with business is established only by the act of divulging out the issue selected by the members preparing questions to the examination executor before submitting it to the examination executor (negative)

[1] It shall not be deemed as an act of obstructing the test execution by selecting pure expected problems which can be predicted that the concerned preparing teacher is to give, from an objective point of view, with an act of giving an examinee or his/her instructor.

[2] Even if the members preparing the examination disclose the issue before submitting it to the examination executor, such an act itself is not an act interfering with the examination executor's duty by using a deceptive scheme, but an act is merely a preparatory stage, and if the leakage problem is not submitted to the examination executor, it cannot be said that there is an abstract risk difference that may interfere with the examination execution duty due to the leakage of such problem. Thus, the crime of interference with business is not established.

[1] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do2211 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 167)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 99No2587 delivered on July 20, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the defendant's act of causing interference with the defendant's act of causing the defendant's act of causing interference with the middle school management committee's junior 14th of the Criminal Act by causing the defendant's act of causing interference with the defendant's act of causing interference with the middle school's junior 2nd of the above 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3th of the 3rd of the 30th of the 3rd of the 30th of the 196th of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

The court below stated that the evidence of guilt is part of the defendant's statement in the court of the court below, Kim Jong-soo's statement in the court of the court below, the statement of this constitutionalism of witness in the court of first instance, the third examination protocol in the court of the court below, the statement of co-defendant's statement in the court of the court below, and the third examination protocol in the court of the court below. However, the defendant changed the textbooks used in the above high school because the court of the court below tried non-indicted 2 to give an intermediary examination book, so the defendant stated that the co-defendant was only to have a copy of the internal examination scope of the above textbook, practice, and comprehensive problem, and whether the defendant's teaching teacher at school was given the above book, the court of the court of the court below stated that the non-indicted co-defendant 1 and the witness at the court of first instance did not give an intermediary examination after dividing the scope of the examination, and that the defendant's testimony and the defendant's testimony in the court of the court of first instance did not have any problem that the above non-indicted 1's witness's statement and the above evidence.

First of all, among the facts of the crime acknowledged by the court below, it cannot be viewed as an act of obstructing the test execution with a pure expected problem predicted that the preparing teacher concerned will give a question objectively from an objective perspective, and an act of selecting an examinee or a person who provides it, and it is not revealed whether the defendant has given it to Co-defendant of the court below or whether it is actually given a question, and in this case, it is not revealed that the defendant simply selected an expected problem unless it is clearly revealed the circumstance or grounds that the preparing teacher in question was predicted to give a question in selecting such a problem, and it does not constitute a crime of interference with business under Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, since the defendant simply selected and selected an expected problem, and it does not change merely because the defendant is one among the preparing teachers.

Next, among the facts of the crime acknowledged by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the crime of interference with business is established since there is an abstract risk that the examination is interfered with the examination process due to leakage of the problem unless the examination implementer submits it to the examination implementer by using a deceptive scheme. In this case, the defendant selected the issue on October 10, 1996 and submitted it to the school after the defendant delivered the issue to the co-defendant and submitted the issue to the school on June 12, 196, the fact that Non-Indicted 2 tested the examination, but it is acknowledged that the records are recorded, and even if the criminal facts were approved by the court below, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant did not give it to the co-defendant, and since the defendant did not prepare it as a result of the examination, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant did not prepare it to the co-defendant after preparing the examination.

Nevertheless, the above evidence alone contains an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of interference with business under Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, or by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and thus, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)