2017 Violation of the Act on the Obstruction of Business Affairs, and Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly

A

Special Prosecutor Park Jong-young ( Prosecution)

Special Prosecutor Park Jong-dae, Dispatching Prosecutor the highest order of the Dispatching Prosecutor, Promotion (Public Trial)

Law Firm B (Attorney in charge C, D)

June 23, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a professor of the Ministry of Sports and Science at a new industrial convergence university located in Seoul E University (hereinafter referred to as the “F University”), from August 1, 2014 to October 25, 2016, and was working as the head of the FF Institute from March 1, 2016 to October 10, 2016, and as the head of the FF Institute from March 1, 2016 to October 25, 2016.

1. Interference with business;

(a) relating to entry to the F.F.

The Defendant, who had been well-known as the U.S. president, had exercised influence over the president’s overall performance of national affairs based on the friendly relationship with the former president, who was well-known as the U.K., who had served as the F major president from July 29, 2014 to October 20, 2016, as the professor of the F major’s political science department, and as the professor of the F major’s political science department, from August 1, 2014 to October 30, 2016, in sequence, conspired with L, etc., who had served as the Chief of F major, from around August 1, 2014 to around October 30, 2016 to 2015).

around September 11, 2014, the defendant submitted a letter of support to the FJ 2015's occasional recruitment type, and I, at that time, asked the defendant to pass the FNF health university after notifying the fact that M had applied for the FV type to the FV type, and asked the defendant to the effect that "M with the knowledge of the defendant who is the head of the PNF science university" would be able to pass the FV type, and the defendant immediately thereafter asked the above P P's father, who was known at the PP's hotel coffee coffee in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, to the effect that M will pass the FV type by an occasional recruitment type."

I continuously responded to the purport that RW Ma received a medal at the S M M M M’s model, and that "P will be aware of the fact that "P will be able to take so that it can take the medal from the interview." At the request of I, P around that time, notified the Defendant of M's S M's receipt of a medal, so that M's receipt of a medal can be reflected in the interview," and that "M's receipt of a medal can be reflected in the interview."

In addition, on September 2014, the Defendant requested T professor, who is the Superintendent of the sports science department, to take up the position of L Admission Officer, and requested L to the effect that L is able to pass by M while making a horse, such as “H’s son M supported by F. H’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.”

L around that time, at the Frang president's office, reported the fact that the Defendant was about the support for He's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha'

On September 29, 2014, L submitted a document stating that L's progress of the occasional recruitment of sports special skills to K from time to time in 2015, 'the 2015 N(U high 3) case', which means that L will take measures to be taken in the future, from time to time in 2015, 'the report on special matters'. On September 29, 2014, L called Ma as 'the family members with social power' and 'the status of and plan for the promotion of the work of the head of the central administrative agency related to M', stating the progress of the occasional recruitment of sports special skills to K, 'the status of and plan for the promotion of the work of the head of the central administrative agency related to M', by using e-mail on October 8, 2014, 'the issue of support for the pro rata personnel portion of e-mail from K to 10 years after receiving the above report to K as 'the next 20th e-mail'.'.

L means, around October 18, 2014, at the occasional recruitment test site, for the purpose of allowing visitations to take a high interview point on M, M to take an interview with the interview board, and the purpose of allowing visitations to take an interview with the interview board, and the special skill in the riding field, which has been carried out for T to the effect that the special skill in the riding field, is a non-preferred H, in which the interview board is a non-regular h’s children. The president reported the thickness of Smeral at any time of this recruitment, and then the president reported that there is no condition to take the interview, and the president tried to 1 to take a comprehensive test of the above interview to move to the interview place, and then, to give him/her his/her hand or arms at one hand, and to give him/her a high interview with the interview board at one time. Accordingly, the above members of the interview board notified M to the effect that M to the effect that he/she would be given a high disadvantage in the interview and treatment of his/her entire qualifications, including that he/she would be given a high interview.

After that, L and K, around October 28, 2014, at the temporary meeting of 2015, held for deliberation and resolution on the admission situation for athletic specialist recruitment type, the interview evaluation of M was conducted in a normal manner by concealing the fact that M was conducted in a normal manner, and reported that M was conducted as if M had been conducted at the general meeting 6, etc., by allowing the above school members to deliberate and make a resolution on the admission situation including the contents of the selection of M., the final selection was made by allowing the above school members to pass the selection of M as an athletic specialist type successful candidate, and the defendant confirmed L to the above P prior to the publication of the successful candidate on the same day, and the 1th of the same day passed the M from P prior to the announcement of the successful candidate.

Accordingly, in collusion with I, K, L, and P, the Defendant interfered with the appropriate and fair interview of sports-related interview members such as the above V by force, and interfered with the proper and fair interview of sports-related interview members, and through deceptive scheme, the Defendant interfered with the proper and fair recruitment and situation of the teachers and staff members attending the above temporary school affairs meeting such as the FFT Minister.

B. The F major’s academic affairs and M did not attend the F major sports science department, and the M did not attend the course, and was given a bachelor’s degree during the first semester of 2015 and was given a school trip during the first semester of 2016, but M did not have an intention to attend the course in Germany and did not request the F major professors, including the Defendant, to obtain credits.

From the end of 2015 to the beginning of 2016, the Defendant was asked to the effect that “M would not get credits even if M would not attend the lecture.”

On the other hand, at around March 25, 2016, I had a telephone contact from AA, a faculty member of the sports science department of M, to the effect that "M would be subject to another warning if he/she fails to attend a lecture again, and if his/her school affairs warning is accumulated three times, he/she should manage it because there is a risk of expulsion." On the other hand, I would like to file a complaint with AA, "I would like to remove his/her her her son," and "I would like to find A, who is in F, around the end of March 2016 and around April 2016, I would like to say that "I would like to have a person who is not the same as a professor, who will be her son, and would have his/her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's degree."

In addition, on April 2016, the Defendant introduced or allowed the I and M to introduce the Ministry of Sports and Science AB, Y professors, and the Convergence Contents AC professors, who take charge of the subjects applied for M in order to make the request for convenience of attendance, etc. and grant credits to the attendance at meetings, etc., and furthermore, at the same time, the Defendant sent the same purport to AC by visiting the sports of the faculty in charge of the subjects attended by M, and the visiting professor AD and part-time lecturers to the effect that “It is well managed even if M does not attend the lecture,” and “AB shall not easily request M to attend the school affairs and attendance of M,” etc. For the same purpose.

In addition, around April 2016, the Ministry of Justice stated that the introduction of AB and B through the introduction, etc. of the defendant, and that the introduction of AB under the direction of the defendant, AD does not appear in the lecture, but the convenience in M's credits, attendance, etc. was changed.

At the end of June, 2016, AB had not been present at the Fran to take the examination or submit the task at the "AF" class, which is the subject of the first semester, which is the subject of the defendant's instruction in accordance with the above order of the defendant, but has not been present at the F. M. lecture, has been present at the middle and the end of the period, has applied for the middle and the end of the period, has obtained the prescribed points, and has given the normal grade, has entered the F.F. school affairs management system (AG) as if he has given the normal grade, and has not changed the number of absence hours indicated as "0.0" to the actual absence hours, and has not submitted the related sexual data such as the output to the F. T. D. T. school affairs team.

In addition, around April 2016, AB delivered the Defendant’s instructions to the effect that AD and AE will take credits even if the Defendant did not attend the lecture, according to the above Defendant’s instructions, and that AD and AE will not take part in the subjects of AD as a first semester course at the end of June 2016, and even if AE was not present at all in the subjects of AD’s subjects of study and the AI’s subjects of AE lecture, it submitted the FG school affairs management system as above, “C+,” “C,” and “40.00, respectively,” and “0.00,” and “0.0” did not change the number of absence hours to the actual absence hours, and submitted the relevant sexual data, such as output, etc., to the D and AE team.

In addition, at the end of June 2016, AC had, as a first semester subject in 2016 under the direction of the defendant, not present at all in the subjects of ‘AJ' which he was demoted as online and offline, but in the above way AC's assistant instructors, AK and AL had them enter M in the F school affairs management system, and failed to change the number of the finish time indicated as ‘0.0' to the number of actual absence time and submit related academic data such as printed material to the F school affairs team.4) As a result, the defendant conspireds with I, M, AB, AD, and IH subjects related to the subjects of ‘AF', and conspired with I, M, EB, AB, AD, and MAJ affairs related to the subjects of ‘I, M, AE, AB, AJ affairs, and interfere with the subjects of ‘I, MAJ affairs', and MAJ affairs.

2. Violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal in the National Assembly;

At around 10:00, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the third session of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, which is located in 1 as the doctor of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and took an oath.

① On September 2014 upon request of L’s above 1, the Defendant knew that H’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s Professor around September 12, 2014, upon request of P to the effect that “h’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s Professor’s 16th.

I, however, do not answer to the purport that "I would like to know that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to support A? I would like to say that I would like to ask I would like to see what kind of 12 questions will be added? I would like to "I would like to answer, I would like to say I would like to say I would like to ask I would like to "I would like to ask I would like to know that I would like to know I would like to know?" I would like to answer that "I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to ask I would like to say that I would like to know I would not you would like to answer the questions." I would like to say that I would like to answer the questions that "I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know I would like to know you will."

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

For interference with the relevant business when entering the F.S.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness P, L, and T in part;

1. To state some of the statements in the record of examination of witnesses AT and AU;

1. Each part of the protocol of interrogation of the accused, L, K, Y, W, and X-5 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of P, AU, AT, T, V, X, AW, and AX 6);

1. Some of the written answers issued by the Ministry of Education to Defendant L, K, K, AUT, T, Y, W, V, X, and AV;

1. Written statements in the preparation of AY, AZ, and BA;

1. One copy of each file name report, one copy of "report on specific matters", one copy of each report on the performance of duties of the head of a central administrative agency, one copy of the plan (date of preparation: September 26, 2014), K and L e-mail dated October 8, 2014, K and e-mail dated 9, October 23, 2014, K and L e-mail 1.2015, one copy of the output of basic data (written request: BB), one copy of the sign for submitting evidentiary documents, one copy of the certificate of performance of games, one copy of the national representative player's certificate;

1. Minutes of the faculty members of the Sports Science Department, T, e-mail between T, AU, document screening among sports science departments as of September 16, 2014, and list of occasional transition competitions in the year 2015;

1. The entrance screening plan for the year 2015, the F University from time to time in the year 2015, matters to be considered as a special journalist for sports-related document evaluation members, matters to be considered as a special journalist for the year 2015, matters to be considered as an interviewor for sports-related years, minutes of the entrance screening management and improvement committee meeting, records of meetings of the process management and improvement committee, and minutes of the temporary education meeting for the year 2014;

1. The evaluation table (T, T, AB), the number of special reporters for occasional recruitment in year 2015 for the year 2015 for the evaluation table of sports documents for the special reporters (AT, T, AB), the sexual order list by recruitment unit for the persons subject to the interview for the sports, the grade list by each recruitment unit for the persons subject to the interview for the sports, the rating table (V,W, T, X, Y) for the examination for the special reporters' type of sports and interview for the year 2015 for the year 2015;

1. Five copies of a written oath of entrance screening for the year 2015 (W, Y, X, V, T) of recommendation of a screening member (part of a screening member), a written notification of the screening, a written pledge of entrance screening for each year 2015, and a F University in each year 2015;

1. A 명의 비씨카드 사용내역 사본 1부, ㈜Q호텔 커피숍 영수증 사본 1부, 2014. 8.~ 9. P의 일정표

1. The heads of the AT Ministries and the head of the AV entrance team;

1. As to interference with the school juristic person’s articles of incorporation (amended on July 11, 16), the F University’s organization of F University’s school affairs

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness AB and AC;

1. Partial statement of the witness AA;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of AB and AC;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning AE, AD, AK, AK, BD, BE, BF, BG (2 times), and AX;

1. AE, AD, and AK's written statements;

1. School regulations of the F University (amended on June 16, 16), school juristic persons BC Articles of Incorporation (amended on July 11, 16), the organization of the F University, regulations on the management of school records of the F University, output of the screen of the F Institute website, and F Institute Regulations;

1. Five copies of the lecture plan for the subjects of application for the course of study in M 2016, five copies of the lecture plan for the subjects of application for the course of study in M 2016, six copies of the lecture plan for the subjects of application for the course of study in M 2016, six copies of the lecture plan for the course of study in M 2016, eight copies of the course records, eight copies of the attendance, eight copies of the lecture plan for the course of study, eight copies of the lecture plan for the course of study, eight copies of the course of study, evidentiary data for the grant of credits, six copies of the results of the study, six copies of the course of study, 2016, 2016, 2016, 200, 200,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000;

1. 'A' - The currency content, currency content (Evidence No. 214), A, I (BH), K, AB,Y, AC, and AA (Period: from March 25, 2016 to March 26, 2016; 28.3.28; 201. to April 18, 2016).

1. As to the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, the status of entry and departure of individuals (N, M) and individual immigration status (I)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness AB and AC;

1. A witness, L, P, and AA's partial legal statement 1, BI National Assembly (Extraordinary Session) 8th Special Committee on Investigation into National Assembly (AM) video minutes (one CD);

1. Written charge (AO and defendant launch: K, A, L) (720);

Judgment on Defendant and Defense Counsel’s argument 7)

1. Interference with business affairs related to the entry of the National Treasury;

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

1) Although P did not accept a deposit with the purport that "she would not have known that P had already known "H M (N)" to P was already aware of the Defendant," it did not accept a deposit with the purport that "she would not be able to give him or her an opportunity to speak", and there is no lack to accept a request for a request for reflection at the time of entry into the gold-line month.

2) On September 23, 2014, the Defendant merely asked L on September 23, 2014 whether or not there was an applicant for penting and riding, etc., which is an item of newly added athletic qualification, and there is no word to request M’s pass, and there is no reason to invite K and illegal selection.

3) The Defendant, as well as L, did not request or instruct the professors of the sports science department, such as T andY, to give unreasonable points to the professors of sports science, including interview evaluation.

B. Relevant legal principles

Joint implementation of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the realization of the elements of a crime by all accomplices. It is also possible to cooperate with them to strengthen the decision on such act. Whether such act is determined by comprehensively taking into account each person’s understanding of the outcome of the act, the size of participation in the act, and intent to control the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). An conspiracy is not a legally fixed type of crime, but a combination of intent to realize the crime by collusion with two or more persons to jointly engage in the crime. Even if there is no overall conspiracy, it is established a conspiracy relationship between the two or more persons in order or impliedly through the process of the entire conspiracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). However, if there is considerable possibility that the criminal defendant would reasonably be engaged in an act beyond the bounds of one’s own intent to commit an offense, such as an indirect act.

On the other hand, an invitation to a co-principal is to be made by two or more persons to commit a specific criminal act with a co-principal's intent, and to shift one's own will to one's own execution by using another's act. However, the decision of the conspiracy is not necessary to make a detailed decision on the mother's specific date, time, place, contents, etc., and it is clear that the agreement has been reached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008; 2006Do3631, Aug. 25, 2006; 95Do2930, Mar. 8, 1996).

The term “component force” of the crime of interference with business means any force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will. As such, violence, intimidation as well as social, economic, political status and pressure by right, etc. are included in this context, and in reality, it does not require a restraint of the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s criminal status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the determination of whether the crime constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons, capacity, form of force, type of duty, status of the victim, etc. In addition, the force of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily mean only the ability to directly leave a person on duty, but may also include acts that make a certain material condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will and make it impossible or considerably difficult to act freely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5316, May 16, 2015).

C. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court.

(i)the basic structure, content, and composition of entrance examinations;

A) According to the Higher Education Act, FJ has established and published an implementation plan for the admission screening of universities and colleges in compliance with the basic matters for the admission screening of universities and colleges published by the Korean Council for University Education (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Council for University Education”), which is a school consultative body (hereinafter referred to as the “K”) according to the Higher Education Act (see Article 34-5). For the selection of new students each year, the FJ has publicly announced and implemented an admission screening consisting of regular and occasional recruitments. In occasional recruitments, documents evaluation and interview evaluation were included, and an athletic specialist may be granted admission through a separate screening, and evidentiary documents such as a certificate of performance shall be submitted and conducted concurrently (Article 17(3) and (4)

B) The admission process management committee (hereinafter referred to as "admission process committee") shall be established for the fair management of admission process while the admission process is administered by the head of the admission process, the head of the admission department, and the head of the entry team (Article 17-2(4) of the school regulations).

C) K won won at the president’s election on April 25, 2014 and the president’s election, and around July 2014, L was stipulated as the Minister for Admission.

D) At the time of the entrance examination in 2015, the entrance office was comprised of L, the head of the entrance office (management), AU (Associate professor in the repair department of a natural science university), the head of the entrance office (counseling), AT (Associate professor in the International Department of Work in a Management University), AV, the head of the entrance team, X-X (Chief).

E) On August 1, 2014, the Defendant was appointed as the president of the Health Science University (the president of the New Industry Convergence University after reemployment), and T from August 1, 2014 to July 31, 2016, respectively, and from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015, the vice president of the Health Science University (the New Industry Convergence University after reemployment) and the vice president of the Sports Science University from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2015, and AB was employed as the vice president of the Sports Science University from February 1, 2015 to January 1, 2017.

F) Y is a sports science associate professor, W is an electronic engineering department of the BJ college, and V is a computer engineering department of the BJ college and an assistant professor.

(ii) support for the model of the F.O. M and the solicitation for admission;

A) On November 30, 2013, FJ finalized and publicly announced “Implementation Plan for Admission to F University universities” as of November 30, 2015, and on April 30, 2014, FJ confirmed and announced “Occasional Recruitment of F University” in 2015 (Special 1986 pages).

B) Among the occasional recruitments in 2015, “universities and recruitment units for the special skills examination for the practical period” includes the Ministry of Health and Science for the Ministry of Health and Science for the recruitment unit, the Ministry of Health and Science for the recruitment unit for the sports science of the Health and Science University for the first 100% for the first phase (within 3.5 times), the second phase document 80% + the interview 20% for the second phase document) (inter 795 pages).

C) around September 2014, I asked P to whether there is a person who can be considered when receiving an application from the university or college, and P said that P can be considered as a person who knows an application from the F Body.

D) On September 11, 2014, around 18:59, 201, AX, along with M, completed the receipt of an application for an athletic qualification for the Frane type (Special 1578, 557 pages). I, after receiving an application, requested the Defendant to the effect that M would accept a solicitation because M would have supported the F.

E) Around that time, P contacted the Defendant, and around September 12, 2014, at Q hotel around 6:00 p.m., talked with the Defendant and opened a viewing of the Defendant by talking about the Flux of the sports specialty unit M (N) in Q hotel.

F) P transferred M to the Defendant a phone call after M M puts a medal in S, and then transferred M M to a solitary post.

3) Submission, etc. of an admissions after the closing of the application for the evaluation of documents

A) Meanwhile, around August 15, 2014, T received from AU the 2014 “Standards for the Evaluation of Documents from the Department of Sports and Science (Special 4656 pages)” (hereinafter “former Standards”) and revised the revised standards for the Evaluation of Documents (hereinafter “New Standards”) on September 16, 2014, which became final and conclusive at the Council of the Academy of Sports and Science on September 16, 2014, and the new standards were submitted to the Admission Agency on September 18, 2014, after the completion of the support for pre-entry in the year 2015 (Seoul 36-389, Special 4637 pages).

B) According to the new standards, a national scale competition organized by the Korean Sport and Sports Association and the Association for each issue is marked with points such as “other international competitions” (Article 406,408). Meanwhile, according to the evidential documents (Article 605-609) submitted by M while receiving an application for M, M is a national representative (Article 605-609), and M is a majority of the prizes supervised by the Korean Sports Association. However, according to the old standards, the first prize performance of the Association’s one prize is granted to D grade (100), and according to the new standards, B grade (200) is granted.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) Delivery of admission deposits and L on September 22, 2014, such as the president’s report, etc.

A) Around September 2014, the Defendant asked T to see whether T is well-known with L which is the entrance officer, and T was the reason that T was well-known with L which is a golf and the test with L, and the Defendant changed to prepare L, and T was called “T” to talk with L that the Defendant would want to talk.

B) On the 22th of the same month, the Defendant informed L herman of the fact that H’s children, who are the owners of the horse riding promising L, were able to support the FF sports specialty type, and L her children reported to K around the 22th of the same month of the fact that H’s children applied for the FF athletic specialist type as the Smalmalmalmmium. Since K was unaware of what person he was H, K explained of the relationship between G and H, which is known as the owner of the FF’s non-line type (hereinafter referred to as “the General Report”).

C) L, after reporting by the president on September 22, 2014, divided AU, AT and dialogues with the president, and “I reported from the Defendant to the president on the ground that Hson supported our university and college, I extracted from the president, and that the president was unaware of himself.”

5) On September 22, 2014 and September 23, 2014, K and L attended the General Meeting held in P.O. on September 22, 2014 (the attendance of each head of each wife, including the Secretary-General and Vice-President, and the central administrative agency of each head of each Ministry, such as the planning director, etc.). L stated at the above General Meeting that “I reported the support for H’s entry, but I shall not have any preferential treatment and discrimination at the time of entry of the president,” and discussed to the effect that the new standard was submitted later after receipt of the application, and that the application of the old standard was fair in the above General Meeting.8)

B) During the attendance of L, AU, AT, and AV on September 23, 2014, the conference of the head of the entrance office was convened on September 23, 2014, L explained the results of the conference of the Minister on September 22, 2014, and agreed that all assignment officers of the entrance office were unfair to apply the new standards (L, AU, AT, and AV’s statutory statement.9C) AV sent an e-mail that notifies the members of the entrance process to refer this issue to the entrance process on September 24, 2014 (L, AU, AT, AV, and AV’s statutory statement. 18:01).

6) Preparation of L's reports on special circumstances on September 24, 2014

A) At around 14:01 on September 24, 2014, L drafted L’s WP document files (mix 2237, 2240 pages, special cases, 153, and special cases 4298 pages) with the “report on the particulars as set forth below” and the “computer” program.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

G) In general, two professors of the Ministry of Health and Science and one recommendation for admission in the sports science university (Special 1986 pages) and one recommendation for admission (Special 1986 pages). Among them, the Ministry of Sports and Science T, and AB completed the document evaluation on September 22, 2014 through September 23, 2014, and M of the document evaluation results applying the new standard was found to have been 4th 11 (HH4 pages).

8) Preparation of L’s work progress and plan, holding of entrance process and determining application of old standards

A) L drafted, on September 26, 2014, “the status and plan for the performance of duties of the head of a central administrative agency” as follows (7327 pages).

A person shall be appointed.

B) On September 29, 2014, the Presidential Decree on the Admission Process was held. The new standard was submitted after the receipt of the application and was in violation of fairness, and was determined to apply the old standard with the consent of all the members (the 18th, 1626th, 16th, 12). On the other hand, L required to add “S’s water performance to the above admission Process Agenda.” On the other hand, L was required to add “S’s water performance to the above admission Process Agenda.” The admission Process Schedule was assigned to the interviewor so that he/she can decide whether to reflect it under his/her self-determination, and did not draw an explicit result of deliberation.

8) Re-implementation of document evaluation according to the old standard and L’s e-mail on October 8, 2014

A) The three members of the document evaluation committee followed the document evaluation by applying the former standards until October 2014. On October 6, 2014, the Z staff of the entrance team sent e-mail sent to the e-mail that “it is no longer possible as a result of the document evaluation entry inspection” to the BL, etc. (referring to referring AV, etc.) on October 6, 2014 (inter 493 pages).

B) The results of the evaluation of documents according to the former standards were as follows, from the fourth (500 points) to the 9th (350 points), and at least 6 competitiveities, such as BM (Co-9), BN (8th), BN (7th), BP (6th), Q (5th), and BR (4th). Since the sixth (6th) obtained 400 points, it was necessary to overcome 50 points or more in the interview evaluation in order to reach the 6th (in the case of 1, 2, and 3th (200 points) and the full score of the interview evaluation is 200 points, it cannot pass the interview evaluation unless it is decided or resolved).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C) L sent e-mail to K on 10,8 August 2014, under the title of “a few simple reports on admission operations” as follows, and K sent e-mail with the following contents (special 8700 pages).

A person shall be appointed.

9) Appointment of visitors and conduct of interview evaluation, etc.

A) around October 16, 2014, the AU notified that W, V, and X was selected as an interview commissioner for athletic qualification.

B) Two professors of the sports science division among visitations were selected on October 18, 2014 at the interview management headquarters (CJBBB153) around 10:00 on the day of interview, through a lottery method in which the Defendant was selected and notified by telephone to the relevant professor in the presence of L, AT, CK (e.g., professor in charge of art-related general administration) and the Defendant’s participation (SJW 521 pages, 143, 1445 pages).

다) 입학처에서는 2014. 10. 18. 15:00경부터 면접관리본부에서 면접위원을 대상으로 한 오리엔테이션을 진행하였다(이하 '면접OT'라고 한다). L은 면접OT 전에 면접 위원들이 모여있는 자리에서 H의 딸 M가 S에서 금메달을 땄는데 이번에 지원했다는 취지의 말을 하였고, 면접OT에서 면접위원들을 상대로 "이번 수시모집에 S 금메달리스트도 있다. 이 학생들은 서류평가에 반영이 안 됐으니까 이런 학생들을 많이 뽑을 수 있게 면접평가에 반영해 달라, 총장님께 보고 드렸더니 총장님이 뽑으라고 하신다”라고 말하였다. 이에 놀란 AU이 L을 제지하면서 "이건 농담으로 들으시고 평가에 반영하지 마시고 못들은 것으로 해주십시오"라고 말하면서 면접위원들을 데리고 면접장으로 이동하였다. 그런데 L 피고인은 따라오면서 면접위원들에게 손나팔로 "금메달입니 다금메달"이라고 소리쳤다.

D) Meanwhile, at the interview waiting room around that time, M asked the applicant assistant in the interview room to question “whether or not he will enter the school or not (136, 2273 pages),” and the applicant assistant knew about the above questions to the employee of the entrance officer waiting in the corridor. Although L, who received a report from the entrance officer, pointed out that L is likely to be a matter of fairness, it was decided to allow it (1270, 2373 pages).

E) M had an interview evaluation point of 192, with an interview evaluation point of 192, and 21 examinees, with an interview evaluation point of 1.

10) L’s e-mail, etc. as of October 23, 2014 and a successful applicant’s presentation

A) On October 23, 2014, L sent the following e-mail to K as the title “report on the work of a group”, and K sent the response e-mail to L on the following day (Special 8701 pages).

I have the honor to report the duties of the President.1 I will CHCI representative and am. I will see that I passed the interview at the 31st day of the announcement. The announcement will be more than 31 days.-------------------------------------- Nitrwn will am simply. I will am am at the end of the normal letter. I will am well manage by no later than bast.2 last day. I will think that I will continue to play a role in the first day from the public relations of the words "FOOOOO". He will start to do so.

B) On October 28, 2014, L, along with AU, filed a report with K on the successful applicants, etc. for occasional recruitment, at the president’s office prior to the temporary school affairs conference to determine admission, L passed the H’s resolution.

As we see, K asked 'I am you??', and L explained L on H, K said 'I am I am ‘I am I am I am I am I am.'

C) On October 28, 2014, the Defendant confirmed the passing of M through L, and notified P thereof.

D. Determination as to whether a public contest, force, or deceptive act was committed

1) The public invitation relationship between I, P and Defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is deemed that there was a successive combination of opinions regarding M’s unlawful selection by demanding this P to admit the Defendant’s admission and viewing, and P to deliver the Defendant’s admission and viewing, giving positive answers, and then, there was a series of opinions regarding the unlawful selection of M by exercising certain influence among I, P, and the Defendant’s admission and viewing.

A) P made a statement to the effect that “P” was “(i) to the effect that “P was sent by the request of the Defendant, which had previously been given support to FF by telephone around September 11, 2014 or September 12, 2014,” and (ii) that P and the Defendant stated that the examination number was sent by I (Special 4481,605 pages). Meanwhile, P and the Defendant stated that there was a inter-friendly relationship between P and the Defendant (Special 5664 pages, Defendant, and P’s legal statement). P and immediately met the Defendant on the following day after M’s completion of the receipt of the request. Even according to the Defendant’s legal statement, considering that P referred to “F-time recruitment special riding special assistance to the Defendant,” it is difficult to recognize that P received a mere receipt of the examination number from the time of receipt of the request from the Defendant to the date of receipt of the request by the Defendant and delivery of it to the Defendant’s hotel directly through contact with the Defendant’s hotel.”

B) In addition, P stated that "N is not a H's her husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's words, so M is aware of M's h' and M is aware of it from the time she turns out. Furthermore, "I think it is about H's wife's thoughts or depth at the time she talks with the defendant at the time she talks with the defendant," and "I think it is not an important matter for the defendant's children at the time of departure from employment," and "I think it is certain that I will clearly see that I will take the day because I would not have any other important matter for the defendant at the time of departure from employment (P's legal statement)." The fact that P's husband's husband's horse riding is difficult without the defendant's presentation, it is difficult to understand that N was a horse riding from the time when she turns out, or that she did not know about the contents of she or her husband's experience between the defendant and the defendant's woman at the time of departure."

C) P made a statement to the effect that “P” was able to talk with the Defendant so that M’s gold medals can be written at the time of entering, and that it was delivered to the Defendant (P’s criminal statement). In addition, if the Defendant stated that it was contacted again by P as to S Geum-M’s winning ceremony (the Defendant’s legal statement), P was conducted by interview evaluation ( October 18, 2014), and that it was called “P’s legitimate statement” (the P’s statutory statement), as long as P is not a F-related party, it is difficult to ascertain that the Defendant’s successful bid was sent from October 31, 2014 to October 28, 2014, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to first respond to the P’s request to the effect that it was 100:60,000,000 from October 31, 2014 to October 26, 2014.

2) The public offering relationship between the defendant and L

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant recognized that the defendant delivered "in exchange for "in exchange for "in exchange for" L, the admission director via T, and on the other hand, as seen below, the president reported this to K and decided to promote the entry of M, and subsequently, notified the defendant of the passing of M prior to the publication of the successful applicant. In addition, it should be deemed that the defendant and L's share of the intention of illegal selection of M was impliedly expressed at least.

A) In the audit and inspection of the Ministry of Education, T states that "L and the defendant are in a relationship with each other (152, 153 pages), T and L have a friendly relationship (T's legal statement), such as golf and the table (T's statutory statement), L's statement to the effect that "I want to talk with L's thickness" (L's legal statement), AU, and AT stated to the effect that "I reported to the president since LO T and the defendant supported the university of Korea" (83,84 pages, Ma1269 pages, Ma140, MaU, 900, 900, 900, 902, 314) and HaT's statement to the effect that "IT's statement to the effect that I would like to talk with L's legitimate statement to the effect that I would like to know about the fact that I reported to the president" (the defendant will prepare a new statement to the effect that I would like to know that I would like to know.

B) L statements that 23 items were extended from the Defendant, S, riding items, promising week, and H’s words “23 items.” In addition to the circumstances that the major signs for examinee M are included, and thus, it can be easily delivered to L, L can easily access relevant information, so that M can be easily identified, as well as can continue to present the progress of an athletic training course. The Defendant accepted the “inception request” from P on September 12, 2014, the Defendant accepted the “inception request” with P, and took overall control over the affairs related to the admission of F, and prepared the rest of the term “inception with the entrance of the Director who can exercise a full influence over a certain whole of the preception process,” the Defendant can be seen to have delivered L a “inception beyond a simple fact of entry support” to L.

C) In addition, L appears to have immediately transmitted the above fact to K, which includes the fact that L, a president's first report to K, and the fact that L, a ‘the verbal notification of Nyang support to the President of the University of Health and Science' was included in L, L, a continuous report on the progress to K with continuous interest in M in the course of athletic professional training, and L, a statement to the effect that L, a ‘M' prize was confirmed through the Internet, and that L, a statement to the effect that L, a ‘H son' would have obtained gold and supported it (No. 1218, No. 6 of the Integrated List) and the defendant would not know that H son' would have obtained it through the Internet (the integrated list No. 1218, No. 6 of the defendant), the defendant would have expressed that L, a large number of people of sports special skills in the month in which L was newly added before L, and that L, a statement to the fact that L, the defendant would have expressed that M, the defendant would have expressed his opinion that it would be the most combined with S M.

3) The relationship between Defendant, L, and K’s public invitation

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it can be found that L was a public offering through the interview and M with intent to jointly select the Defendant before receiving the Defendant’s solicitation and actual realization of the interview evaluation and the meeting of the church, and that K delivered the Defendant’s selection order for L to the Defendant, by reporting the fact that L was supported by H’s father, and explaining the relationship between G and H, etc. to L, and by giving instructions to the effect that K was given to the effect that it was not aware of the fact that L was a public offering. Accordingly, it can be found that the Defendant had a direct cohesion in addition to the successive public offering with L.

A) The dialogue between L, AU and AT after the report of the president.

(1) AT은 'L이 "보고를 했을 때 몰라서 그림으로 그려서 (H) 설명을 막 드렸더니 총장님이 뽑으래, 자기는 모르는 것으로 해달래" 웃으시면서 지나가듯이 이야기를 하셨다'라고 진술하고(900번, 4쪽), 특검(특3681쪽), 검찰(검1450쪽), 교육부 감사(교47쪽)에서도 같은 취지로 각 진술하였다. AU 역시 특검 이래'(총장이 뽑으라고 한다) 그런 취지의 이야기는 있었던 것 같다'(특3913쪽), 'L이 "총장이 H의 딸을 뽑으라고 했다"는 취지의 말을 했다', '다른 사람이 그렇다고 하니 진술한 것은 아니지만 저도 곰곰이 생각해 보니 그 정도로 그냥 가볍게 이야기하셨던 것 같다'라고 진술하였다 (902번, 17쪽).

(2) If AT is the same as the process of memory of L's horses, the situation where L's mind at the time, and the situation where L's mind at the time were the same, and if the President asked that L's son may know about his 's her fl', the President so that L's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl's fl

(3) On the other hand, K stated in the special examination that "L was sent to the media as solitary students so called CO." The same shall apply to the statement that "L was sent to H-Cson's name," "W-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-W-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-S.

(4) In full view of the above circumstances, K and L at the time of the president’s report, together with the positive response to M’s support, revealing that the internal deliberation intent intended to select has been expressed.

(b) Preparation, modification, and reporting to K of "report on special matters";

(1) L, even if L, at around 14:01 on September 24, 2014, prepared a document file stating that L, at around 15:07, has been amended as follows (196 pages, 153 pages), L, only prepared a report on specific matters and did not actually report to K, but it is not consistent with the point of time of preparation by the Ministry of Education, and it is hard to see that L, as a summary of the CP (181 pages) on September 21, 201, it is hard to see that L, as a summary of the e-mail report, it is hard to see that L, as a summary of the CP (181 pages), it is difficult to see that L, as a summary of the e-mail report, the e-mail report was prepared to 20th 's general secretary' and 86th m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ m/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

A person shall be appointed.

(2) According to the 'specific facts report', L is found to have been identified as '800 points out of '800 points of '800 points of 'the 800 point of 'the 'the 'the '800 point of 'the 'the 'the 'the '800 point of 'the 'the 'the 'the '' of 'the 'the 'the '' of 'the 'the 'the '83 point of ')'. On the other hand, L is not consistent with the 'the 'the 'the 'the 's point of 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '' of 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 's point of 'the 'the 'the '' was found to have been found to have been found to have been using the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''s 'the ''' of ' the ' the '.' the 'the 'the ''.'.' the ' the '

(3) As such, L is interpreted to the effect that there may be controversy over the fairness of the evaluation results of documents applying the new standard, along with the matters regarding M, such as admission deposits delivered by the Defendant by September 24, 2014, through “the report of special matters”, and L is interpreted to the effect that, despite no special opinion or interest of the president, the entry officer prepared a detailed document for M 1, as well as the overall content thereof, will bring about controversy over this issue on the premise of “the selection”.

(4) Meanwhile, L’s deletion of ‘ex post facto measures', ‘the defendant', and ‘fair evaluation' among ‘report on special matters' on October 27, 2016. This is inconsistent with L’’’’’’’’’’’s overall purport, which is written in the same purport.

C) Presentation, etc. of additional agenda items for L's admission process

(1) The AU and AT state that L does not primarily deal with the application of the new standards. In addition to the fact that L does not have served as the entrance officer for more than two months, and that L has experienced the first entrance screening as the entrance officer, and the standard of document evaluation is basically kept and managed by the AU, the head of the entrance agency (management), the document evaluation agency (management), it can be seen that the AU and AT first filed a new standard problem with L, and this is inconsistent with the situation in which L was put into the agenda for the entrance process.

(2) On the other hand, according to the meeting data for the admission process (the 1625th page), ‘S performance' is written as an agenda, and according to the statement of AT, it is recognized that L was included as an additional agenda separately from the problem of application of L's new criteria. Accordingly, L was intended to reflect L's ‘S performance' in the interview through an official discussion process, but it seems that L was an opportunity to emphasize L's ‘S' or ‘S' in the interview evaluation by failing to derive the explicit results of deliberation in the admission process and making it entrusted to the self-regulation of the interview committee members.

D) The current status and plan of the operation of the central administrative agency and e-mail

(1) L made a report to the president on September 26, 2014 using the term "central administrative agency head's implementation status and plan", and sent e-mail to K on October 8, 2014, and October 23, 2014. L, even though L is responsible for managing a large number of entrance screening as the entrance director, has been continuously and continuously interested in 's selection for sportsmen', in particular 'M', and has been reported to K several times. K also seems to have had a considerable interest in M. In addition, L has reported using the term "social history person's family, 's self-support for human resources system', and even if L's statements were examined, L's interest was concentrated on 'H', 'S', and 'S' has been identified rather than 'M'.

(2) The content of “the selection in the direction of pride” written in the e-mail dated October 8, 2014 appears to have expressed and indicated the intent to “M selection” between K and L, and it seems that “the preparation on the document that has been completed in comparison with the situation of only 'the preparation on the document' would be against the controversy that may be raised after the final passing of M, and that it can not be used without the premise of “the selection.”

(3) Although the e-mail of October 23, 2014 did not use the term "strific personnel", it is reasonable to deem that L reports on the present state of successful applicants for the e-mail of the e-mail were based on the interest in K and L, even if it was the time that the entrance situation was not completed.

E) The delivery of K’s instructions to select the Defendant

According to the defendant's special prosecutor's statement (special 8400, 8414, 8415) and the defendant's statement, after the completion of the school superintendent's meeting on October 2, 2014, K made it clear that "K would attract the defendant to get a riding special student" at the small conference room located in the first floor of this Sub-section, and according to the above facts, K would clearly indicate that it has issued a letter of selection of M in advance. Meanwhile, the contents of "report on special matters" themselves are reported to K, and at that time, K was aware that "at the time" was delivered from the defendant to L. However, K would have caused a direct combination of opinions between K and the defendant by notifying the defendant of its selection instruction.

4) Determination on force and deceptive act

A) Whether an act of force has been committed against five visitations

(1) Whether a student with a gold medal notifies him/her of the fact that he/she is H’s father or mother

(A) After having been notified as an interview commissioner, V had been provided with L while handling the affairs related to admission in the meeting room with AU and AT during the interview before the day of the interview.

H made a statement that “I was the President’s opposite position” (136 pages, 1263, 1347 pages, 3258, 3259 pages, 136 pages, 1347 pages, 3258, 3259 pages), and L also accepted L’s provision of H’s support prior to the interview. Furthermore, I stated that “V, separately from the above point of time, stated that “I would like to make all visitors know of the fact that I’s father was his father(s).” (The 137 pages, 3266 pages).

(B) W was said to have participated in the interview from the entrance relationship before the commencement of the interview at the prosecution. It would be thought that W was L. It stated that “W is a talk in the place where several persons, including the interview members, are gathered” (2191 pages), and that it is very inappropriate for W to say that it is very inappropriate for W to say that it would be the same until three years have passed since it would be the same as that of the Director’s memory (the Prosecutor 2192 pages).

(C) At the time of “T” stated that a student with a gold medal was aware of the word “H’s father.” The Internet is the same as that of the entrance’s employee (900 pages, 15 pages), and AZ (Schools Personnel) searched H from the prosecutor’s office with a smartphone, and the relevant content stated that he/she is aware of the thickness (1472 pages).

(D) According to the above statements, L is recognized to be notified of students who had been engaged in several times in the interview members prior to the interview.

(2) Whether the president’s instructions for selection were notified

(A) The Ministry of Education’s audit and prosecutorial office did not make a statement to the effect that L was mentioning the president’s selection order at the time (at the same time, not more than 77 pages, not more than 83 pages, not more than 222 pages, not more than 1267 pages, not more than 1329 pages,). Since the special examination, L stated that “L was “I Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do.” (Special 3897 pages). The above statement about interviewOT Do Do 12014.

(B) At the audit of the Ministry of Education, V did not make any particular statement about the "general" (hereinafter referred to as 135 pages), but at the prosecution, stated that L was referred to the direction of the president of L to select a president (the Prosecutor 1263, 1264, 1347, 1348 pages), and that L in the special prosecutor stated that "L was "at any time during this occasional recruitment, there is a gold medal, and the President reported a thickness with the president." (Special 326 pages), this conforms to the AU’s above statement.

(C) While recognizing that both AU and V were unable to make a specific statement in the audit or prosecution of the Ministry of Education, or that they were in contact with each other in the process of the investigation, the AU does not seem to have been created through mutual cryptives, such as: (a) the situation where other people continue to talk about the situation; and (b) the situation where the situation comes to be satisfy; (c) and (c) the first place of put to put to place place place orders or puts orders to the effect that the said situation was clearly memory (as 902, 8 pages, and V), but at the first place, they gradually

(D) Furthermore, V made a statement to the effect that the words “AT” were helpful in taking place. At the time, AT is unable to hear L’s remarks in other places. However, it is difficult to see that V’s memory concerning interviewOT was distorted through the memory of AT concerning L’s remarks after the president’s report on September 22, 2014. Furthermore, the possibility that AU, V may not be ruled out that it was an unfavorable direction rather than the Ministry of Education’s audit and inspection or investigation agency’s statement of significant contents referred to the president in particular, the AU and V continued to serve in F, and there is no special interest in obtaining by making a statement in spite of the disadvantage to others, and there is no need to transfer liability to others, or that it is difficult to view that it is difficult to say that V’s statement or attitude was made before and after the audit and investigation agency’s or after its own testimony, in light of the following circumstances.

(E) Furthermore, since T, which was an interview member, reported to the president at a special prosecutor, and the president said part of the phrase "T, extracted by the president," it is thought that if IU and V said that it is said so, it cannot be said that I would not make a false speech (special 4147 pages), and that I would not make a so-called a so-called so-called "profescing by extraction from the interview members, such as professors." Furthermore, as IU’s end, I stated that I would like to say that I would say that I would report the thickness of the president, and that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would not listen to this opinion. I would not say that W would be able to say that I would not say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would not be able to see, but I would not explicitly deny that I would not express that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would not refuse this opinion.

(3) Whether the act of force constitutes an act of force

(A) The president, as the representative of the FJ, shall supervise the overall affairs of the faculty as well as the faculty such as professors, associate professors, and assistant professors and appoint them as contractual terms within the prescribed period (Article 36(4) of the Articles of Incorporation), the vice president, the director of the Medical Center, the head of affiliated hospital, the head of the relevant graduate school, and the head of the relevant school. (Article 36(5) of the Articles of Incorporation), the members of the teachers’ disciplinary committee shall be appointed (Article 56(5) of the Articles of Incorporation), and all of the FF institutions such as central administrative agencies in terms of the articles of incorporation and organization, the head of the relevant central administrative agency in the articles of incorporation, the head of the relevant graduate school, and the head of the relevant school shall be in charge of the duties under the order of the president, and the interview members shall be more well aware of this point. In light of the objective purpose,

(B) As regards the president’s direction of selection, V is merely an assistant professor at the time and thus the retirement age, etc. should not be guaranteed, it is difficult to obtain the president’s right to determine (1349 pages). The President General stated that he was not easy to comply with the president’s direction because he had personnel rights, such as assignment and promotion to teachers and staff, including low class, and he did not follow the president’s direction due to the time of guidance (Special 3276 pages). Five visitors assigned interview assessment points to each examinee (572 pages) as follows. According to this, V, as 19 points, Y 1 points, Y 20 points, Y 17 points, T 19 points, and 19 points and 18 points for teachers and staff, Y 20 points 20 points 19 points 20 points 20 points 20 points 20 points 3.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(C) Furthermore, L is not a prior speech on the premise that it is required to be responsible for the individual judgment of the interview committee as discussed at the examination committee or the entrance process to the extent that L is required to reflect the results of L's award, but in the end, it is necessary to extract the gold medal and gold medal from the interview committee by going through the outside of the interview. Even if one of the heads of the central administrative agencies appointed by the president (the head of the central administrative agency) is one of them, he/she is a person in charge of the matters concerning admission under the order of the president (Article 38(1)), and his/her remarks also act as an authoritative guide on admission process, and thus, it constitutes a social position that can provide the interview committee members with a certain direction-setting or act as a sufficient basis for the interview committee members to rely on it.

On the other hand, W stated that, even if it is a regular professor, if it is the net receipt of the organization, it may be sufficiently affected by the president’s instruction and the president’s speech, and if it is the speech of the Minister of fact, it may be deemed that it is a school’s policy (200 pages), and X stated that the interview members “I hear L’s horses and me me me me me us?” (173 pages).

(D) L was provided not only with the president’s statement on the direction to select the gold medal but also with the information of “H father”. Despite the opposition of the AU and V, L was allowed by exercising the president’s decision authority and allowing M to hold a gold medal and enter the interview book. As seen earlier, not only the president’s social position or the influence of the president’s and the director’s right to enter the interview book, but also the “gold medal that is directly connected to L’s speech and the interview book” was created in a physical condition that may occur at any time during the interview evaluation. It can be said that there was a sufficient form of physical situation that may cause confusion in the members’ free will.

한편 X는 'M가 책상 위에 하얀색 메달 케이스를 올려놨다'고 진술하고(검 1736쪽), T는 이 법정에서 'M가 메달 보여줘도 되겠습니까라고 애기를 하고 보여주었다, 메달 자체를 보여주고 그것이 금메달이라는 것이 확인된 것은 맞습니다'라고 진술하여 금메달이 면접위원들에게 실제로 제시되었음을 알 수 있다.

(E) In addition to the above circumstances, in a situation where M is not possible as the only S-meral list among examinees, it is necessary to know that M was at least nine in the evaluation results of documents in accordance with the old criteria, and in order for M to select M, it is necessary to have the interview members receive the highest points in the interview evaluation, and accordingly, it seems that M passed the last 6th order as indicated below. In conclusion, L was intended to exercise a certain influence on the interview members so that M was awarded a high interview evaluation score by exercising a certain influence on the interview members.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, L at the time of InterviewT, M allows visitors to hold a gold medal and hold an interview, i.e., a horse race special horse riding event that they had a gold medal to the Interview members are H’s father. “The president has reported a thickness, and the president has been bound to do so.” In addition, whether the noise was actually led to the suppression of the Interview members’ free will and the wrong judgment and disposition concerning the interview evaluation duties, it is reasonable to view that the interview members’ free will was committed, i.e., an act of interference with business which may pressure and confusion the Interview members’ free will, and that the result of the interview’s self-evaluation was not interfered with the interview, even if the interview was conducted directly in the process of the interview, and that the interview did not directly interfere with the interview, and that there was considerable reason to view that the interview was an act of interference with the interview in the process of the interview.

B) The act of deceptive means against K and L’s members

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the provisional school affairs council was held at the main office around October 28, 2014 and around 14:00, and L/K attended at the main office, and K was convened at the temporary school affairs council related to L/K's affairs. After reviewing and resolving the contents, the resolution of the above school affairs council is "the entrance recruitment situation (six entrance)," and the details of the resolution include "the sexual netism (six persons) by the unit of successful applicants with special skills sports-oriented sports-oriented sports-related skills exemption and exemption." On the other hand, Article 7 subparagraph 6 of the Organization provides that "the recruitment and situation of new students as the authority of the school affairs council" shall be determined.

According to the above facts, K and L did not notify the members of the school of improper speech and behavior as well as the fact that the interview was conducted unlawfully by exercising their force, and did not make the members of the school, and caused them to mistake that the interview was conducted fairly, mistake and mistake that the interview was conducted fairly, thereby allowing M to decide the above matters for resolution, thereby hindering M’s affairs concerning the entrance ruling of the members of the school affairs related to the athletic qualification of six persons who have passed the final decision.

E. Sub-decision

The Defendant and L/K are in a competitive relationship by combining the intentions regarding M’s illegal selection. Even if there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was directly involved in the act of implementation, the Defendant and L/K may not be exempted from the liability of the crime as a joint principal in relation to the act of implementation, as seen earlier by other conspiracys, and the Defendant already cooperate with L, etc., and the Defendant had a subjective intention not only to communicate with the intent to realize the common principal’s intent, but also to realize the purpose of himself through L, etc. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on interference with the relevant duties at the time of entering the F.F. cannot be accepted.

2. Interference with affairs related to the Francian academic affairs;

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

(i) participation in the special benefits of school affairs;

A) The Defendant did not receive or accept the request from the I to the effect that “M would receive credits,” even if M would not attend the lecture,” the Defendant would not receive or accept it.

B) The Defendant, as the principal of a school, presented only the school administration policy or basic principles to the effect that, in the absence of an athletic specialist at a meeting of the principal of a school, he/she should have alternative subjects, and evidentiary materials, and only did not mention, request, or order an unjust preference to school affairs, and the fact that the professor in charge of each subject gave credits in a way leading to criminal conduct was known to the point of October 2016.

C) The Defendant informed Q Q, who is a professor in charge of the subject subject that M applied for a course in the second semester of 2016, of his assignment, attendance, etc., and provided the right and advice to the task, and if he does not appear, he must receive the subject matter well, and C Q sent e-mail to M on September 27, 2016 according to the Defendant’s legitimacy and validity, and notified the submission of a substitute object. Even if the above e-mail is seen, the Defendant did not refer to AB and AC, even though he does not have a continuous absence or absence of a substitute object, it can be seen that the Defendant was not “a certificate of non-conditioned credits.”

D) The recognition of the attendance of the students and the evaluation of their grades are independent authority-interest obligations of the professor in charge of each subject, and the defendant is not unfairly involved and may not participate in it.

2) subject subjects (AB-related) AF, AH, and AI16

A) The Defendant did not completely instruct AB to the effect that “it can be replaced with the attendance of the attendance of the Defendant with documentary evidence, such as the participation in the conference, so that such documentary evidence should be prepared well,” and that “it is unreasonable for M to the general legitimacy of the management of academic affairs and affairs thoroughly,” and that “it is unreasonable for M to give a good attendance of credits.”

B) AB made a false statement that he/she was ordered by the Defendant to implement the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the special benefits of school affairs' through ‘the direct contact with I' and less the criticism and responsibility for himself/herself.

3) AJ17) Subjects (AC related)

A) The Defendant did not have requested AC to ‘the special benefit of school affairs for M’, and provided AC with a phone call to see where the teaching staff and the student wished to have a teaching staff.’ The Defendant provided I and M with the entire guidance.

B) AC stated that “M is subject to school,” the Defendant, and that the Defendant was in a situation in which he was called “satis” or “satisfying,” head satisfying, and that he was asked for ‘catisfying preference’ while having called “M well-known,” but it was not established that M was subject to attendance once, and that it was not consistent with the Defendant’s time of diagnosis, operation and temporary arrival, and that it was all false, and upon the Defendant’s request for a warrant of detention, the Defendant was responsible as if he was requested for the ‘catisfy preference’.

C) AC is likely to implement the "special benefits for school affairs" upon the request of K or friendly CR, the president of K or friendly CR.

B. Whether the crime of interference with business is established as a professor in charge of each subject subject AB, AD, AE, and AC

1) Relevant legal principles

The object of the crime of interference with business is another person’s business. Here, a natural person other than an offender, legal entity, and non-legal entity refers to a natural person other than an offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6404, Dec. 27, 2007). Meanwhile, in the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, “defensive means” refers to the act of causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 2013).

In addition, in the crime of interference with business, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of the purpose of the interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or predictability of causing the consequence that his/her own act would interfere with another person's business, and its recognition or prediction is not only definite but also definite, so-called willful negligence is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do3475, Jan. 31, 2013). In addition, the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if it does not require the actual occurrence of the result of the interference with business, but it is sufficient if there is a risk of causing the interference with business, and the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1721, Jan. 17, 2008; 2009Do4772, Sept. 10, 2009).

2) The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as facts acknowledged.

A) sexual and attendance-related regulations

(1) Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Private School Act, Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the School Act, Articles 2 subparag. 2C’s Articles of Incorporation (hereinafter “Articles of Incorporation”) and FF’s school regulations (hereinafter “school regulations”) established for the purpose of conducting early childhood education based on the basic ideology of education of the Republic of Korea (Article 19 and Article 21(1) of the Higher Education Act).

(2) According to the Fate Organization (hereinafter referred to as the “Organization”), F shall have a basic institution, a central administrative agency, a president’s subordinate agency, each university, etc.; as a basic institution, the president, etc. as a central administrative agency; as a central administrative agency; as a president’s subordinate agency, educational innovation group, etc.; as a university, a new industry convergence university, etc. as a university (Article 3).

(3) The president represents the FF and takes overall control of the overall school affairs (Article 4); the Department of School Affairs shall have the Minister, and the Minister shall take charge of the school affairs, school administration, and school personnel administration (Articles 22 and 24) under the direction of the president (Articles 22 and 24). The school team shall take charge of completion, promotion, graduation-related affairs, academic management, recognition of credits, and management (Article 26).

(4) The National University of New Industry Convergence (FF) consists of one faculty (a sports science major, a global sports industry major) and five departments (a convergence content department, a clothing industry department, an international office department, a food nutrition department, and a convergence health department). The National University of New Industry Convergence has a dean, a representative, to take charge of the relevant school affairs under the order of the president. The University of New Industry Convergence has a faculty, a faculty director, a faculty director in a faculty, and a faculty director in a faculty, and a faculty director in a department to take charge of school affairs plans, organization of curricula, teaching and assignment of students, study of students, life guidance, etc., and has an administrative office that performs various administrative affairs under the orders of the dean.

(5) According to Article 40(1) of the school regulations, where a student is absent from attendance for at least 1/6 of the class hours per semester, the grade for the subject shall be referred to as “F.” In determining the grade, the relative evaluation (a grade shall not exceed 35%, A grade and B shall not exceed 70%, C grade shall be at least 30%, and C grade shall be applicable (Article 34 of the Enforcement Rule of the school regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of the school regulations”), and the additional examination of a son shall be completed before the closing date of his/her academic records (hereinafter referred to as “sexual regulations”).

(6) Article 21 of the Higher Education Act provides that the completion of a course in a university shall be based on the grade point and credit system, etc. Accordingly, F shall be the number of credits, and F shall be the number of credits for which the course of study is 15 hours or more, and shall be given a course of study (Article 35 of the School Regulations), and each credit shall be given a grade point (0 to 4.3) (Article 35 of the School Regulations), and "D-," "F" shall be an advanced system (Article 39(1) of the School Regulations), and "F" shall be 129 credits (Article 39(1) of the School Regulations), and a bachelor's degree shall be granted to a student who has completed a course required by the school regulations and completed a course required for graduation and passed a certain examination, except in extenuating circumstances (Article 48(1) and Article 50(1) of the School Regulations), while, in the case of a grade evaluation due to passing a course or failure to pass a course, it shall not include a grade.

(7) If a student is absent from school or has not been present for at least three weeks without reporting (Article 28 of the School Regulations), and a student is absent for at least 1/6 of the class hours, the grade grade for the subject shall be F if the student fails to attend the school despite his/her application for enrollment (Article 40(1) and Article 46 of the School Regulations).

(8) If the president establishes a person with poor academic records (Article 28 of the School Regulations); if the student’s average academic record is less than 2.00, he/she shall be given special guidance, such as guidance professors (Article 41(1) of the School Regulations); if the student’s average academic record is less than 1.60, he/she shall be removed if he/she is given a bachelor’s warning and received three consecutive times a bachelor’s degree warning (Article 41(4) of the School Regulations). According to the average academic record as of the end of the semester, the basic academic credits or the course of study may be expanded or restricted (Article 45 of the School Regulations and Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the School Regulations), if the total academic record is less than 1.70, without recognizing graduation (Article 41(6) of the School Regulations); if the total academic record is more than 3.75, or if the bachelor’s average academic record is less than 1.60, he/she may complete the bachelor’s degree course under Article 30-1-2 of the School Regulations (Article 47).

(9) The professor in charge of each subject shall respectively enter the same grade(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(i)(s)(s)(s)(i)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)((s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)

(10) The professor in charge shall keep the data on the basis of sexual calculation for one year (Article 8 of the Gender Regulations), sign the results of the subject and present them to the office of the department. The office of the department shall collect them, report them to the director of the department, and sign the confirmation of the results of the subject and the attendance records for each subject reported to the director of the department, and submit them to the administrative office of the college. In the case of the administrative office of the college, "the attendance records" shall be kept for three years (Article 8 of the Gender Regulations) and "the grade records of the subject" shall be submitted to the school register team of the school (Article 8 of the Gender Regulations), and thereafter the school team shall keep the results of the subject in fact reflecting "the results of the subject" (Article 9412 of the Special Regulations).

(11) A student may apply for the issuance of a sexual chart online or offline ( through the Student Support Center), and in the case of an application for the issuance of online and offline, a sexual chart shall be issued in the name of the final confirmation person with all the teachers’ titles, which shall be widely used as data indicating the contents of the subjects taken by the student concerned, including each subject taken by the student in question, such as application, credits, academic scores, academic scores, and academic achievement.

(12) The Director General takes charge of the administration of school affairs, school affairs, and personnel, under the order of the president, and the school team takes charge of all matters concerning the credits, grades, etc. of the students (Article XXVI), as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(13) Meanwhile, the results of entry by the professor in charge into AG are classified and stored for each student, and are in charge of handling the affairs such as the implementation of school administration warnings based on the computerized data (in case of implementing school administration warnings, the relevant student and his parents are sent in the name of the principal of school administration despite informing the relevant student and his/her parents of the reason for school administration warnings, the guidance professor’s sexual counseling and instruction for attending lectures, and the possibility of three-time public announcement of school administration warning). If credits and academic records are accumulated for each semester, the relevant student’s expulsion, promotion, completion, graduation, etc. are determined. On the other hand, where a student’s objection has been filed, the professor in charge may immediately apply for the correction of the results to the school team and directly input the results only in the case of clerical error (Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of School Regulations, Article 7(3) of the Sexual Regulations)

B) Details of M’s application for taking lectures and evaluation methods for each subject;

(1) In the first semester of year 2016, in M’s name, 6 subjects were applied for total as indicated in the following table.18)

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Defendant, Y, AA, CW, AB (Supplementary Professor), and CX (Assistant professor) are professors of sports science department. AC is a convergence content department and regular faculty director, and AD is a part-time lecturer at F. AD, while serving as a part-time lecturer at F. AD around February 2016, performed duties as a sports science invited professor, and provided a doctor’s degree (on the other hand, AH) in addition to AH, as a subject, while serving as a part-time lecturer at the sports science department. AE is demoted for a subject in charge of duties as a part-time lecturer at the sports science department.

(3) AB, AD, AE, and AC have made it clear that they will assess the total point of 100 points by allocating them as follows through the lecture plan for each subject in the first semester of 2016 (However, AD has determined to substitute both interim and last tests without conducting interim examinations, and revised the assessment method to 10% of the attendance and 90% of the task, and 208 pages).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C) Regarding AF subject subjects

(1) AF is a major selection subject of three credits, the subject of which is “CY”.

(2) M was not present at all in the class of AF curriculum, was not also subject matter imposed by AB, and was not subject to the interim and last test.19)

(3) On June 27, 2016, AB entered the Franchi Information System (hereinafter referred to as "AG"), which is a school affairs information system of Franchisian, into "C+," "61,00," and did not modify the number of hours of absence indicated as "10.0," and signed again on "AB" as a professor in charge, signed his/her name on May 3, 2016, stating that the number of days of absence indicated as "10.0," and "AB" as the principal of AB, were all not present on the date of attendance.

(4) A grade was assigned to 25 of the total 74 students attending AF subjects, to 26 of the students, and C through D, respectively.

D) Regarding AH subject:

(1) AH is the major selection subject of one credits, the purpose of which is to promote “Z” and which is to teach “sports and physical uniforms as appropriate for practical skills”.

(2) M was not present at all in the class of AH subject, and did not submit any subject matter imposed by AD.

(3) AD, around June 27, 2016, entered AD's results into AG into "C+," "80,00," and revised the number of hours of absence indicated as "0.0.0, and submitted "AD's attendance book" as of July 1, 2016, stating that AD is present on the date of attendance, which was written as of July 14, 2016, to AD's office, and signed on "AD's grade list of subjects" as the head of AD's department.

(4) A grade was assigned to 12 of the total 32 students attending AH subjects, B grade was assigned to 11, and C through D grade was assigned to 9.

E) Regarding AI subjects

(1) The purpose of AI is to foster "DA", and as a subject, "AI practical training" is to designate the field of twit learning that needs consumers and practice AI directly - AI consumer decision-making that it wants, two persons who teach by forming one group, and a person who receives a course of course is divided into "Al".

(2) M was not present at all in the curriculum of AI subjects, did not take the interim examination, and did not submit any task imposed by AE.

(3) On June 23, 2016, AE did not enter AG into AG with ‘C', ‘40,00', ‘0', and ‘0.0', the number of hours of absence indicated as ‘0.0', which are the same contents as the AE submitted to the department office, the ‘the grade table of the subject' and ‘the attendance record of June 21, 2016, which are written as the attendance record of the date of the class. AE as the professor in charge, and AB as the director in charge, signed each of the ‘the grade table of the subject' among them.

(4) A grade was assigned to 11 of the total 28 students attending AI subjects, B grade was assigned to 11 of the students, and C grade was assigned to 6 of the students, respectively.

F) Regarding AJ subjects

(1) One of the subjects of this case, K-MOC20, is three credits, the object of which is 'DB'.

(2) On April 1, 2016, AC conducted Madra’s special lecture, from June 11, 2016 to June 14, 2016, and M was absent from all Madra’s special lecture and final judgment.

(3) On the other hand, DC entered the ID and password of M and applied for online intermediate examinations and terminal tests on behalf of M.

(4) On June 26, 2016, AK and L did not obtain at least 70 points from AC's AC's AC's AC's AC's AC's AC's AC's AC's AC's ID and par failure to verify online lecture scores, but they could not change the number of absences in accordance with the AC's instructions and '0.0'. After that, AK and AL submitted "sexual S" list for M on June 26, 2016, stating "0,00,000" as the head of the department in charge, and on the other hand, AC's AC's professor's seal as the head of the department in charge.

(5)For the purpose of acquiring credits, 276 students who completed the course of the instant study, have passed the course to 250 students, and 26 students have passed the course, respectively.

3) Determination as to whether the crime of interference with business by AB, AD, AE, and AC is established

According to the above facts of recognition, AB accepted attendance at AF subjects, AD in AH subjects, AE in AI subjects, and AJ subjects in AJ subjects, and AC performed duties as a professor in charge of performing appropriate verification and evaluation on allocated points for each evaluation element of the said subjects, and did not perform M’s attendance, academic achievement, or achievement or degree of the subject goals set by the professor himself/herself, and granted M to obtain the prescribed credits allocated for the said subjects, and granted a certain grade or passed (S) grade.

It is reasonable to view that the submission of data, such as the false attendance approval of AB, AD, AE, and AC, sexual evaluation, and subsequent AG entry, constitutes "act of deceptive scheme in the crime of interference with business as a serious occupational violation beyond simple business negligence." Furthermore, since M was absent on all teaching days exceeding 1/6 of class hours, as M did not obtain any one of the points allocated for each evaluation element of the above subjects, it is deemed that M should be dealt with, and M cannot obtain any prescribed credits. The AC also knew that M was less than 70 points, the passing standard is less than 70 points because it did not comply with all of the written examinations for special lectures, and that M did not confirm whether or not MOC centers were taking online lectures or the points of MOC points at the time of the final evaluation of sexual records, it is clear that M was unable to obtain any prescribed credits.

Meanwhile, on July 13, 2016, AB submitted e-mail in the name of M, a document in the form of three e-mail, “necessary physical strengths for riding players” (hereinafter referred to as 1024 pages), but it is merely submitted after AB had been present at the time of the completion of the sexual evaluation, and AB voluntarily made a sexual performance in accordance with the Ministry of Education’s audit and inspection, so the submission of the task cannot be recognized as being submitted because it was submitted after granting credits (hereinafter referred to as 91 pages), and it does not interfere with the recognition of deceptive act and criminal intent.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, AB interfered with the AF subjects, AD, AE, and AI subjects, AC as a professor in charge of AJ subjects, false recognition of attendance as a professor in charge of AJ subjects, and deceptive means based on sexual evaluation.

Therefore, the argument that the crime of interference with business is not established against AB, AD, AE, and AC, a professor in charge of each subject of AF, AH, AI, and AJ. is not accepted.

C. Whether the defendant's crime of interference with business related to the AF, AH, AI, and AJ subjects is jointly committed

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control based on the joint will as a subjective element. Here, the intent of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to allow it without restraint, and it should be one of the joint efforts to commit a specific criminal act with the intent of another person. Provided, That it is sufficient that there is a trade name that each accomplice should either meet the elements of a crime or share the elements of a crime in essence among the accomplices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008; 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004).

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances duly adopted and examined by the court, the principal of the new industry convergence university: (a) the defendant requested 'academic preference to M' from I and M; (b) the head of the sports science department at AB directly responsible for AB; (c) the visiting professor AD or part-time lecturer who is in charge of AB's absence to obtain credits for the subjects abroad; (d) the defendant did not clearly or implicitly accept the above 'academic preference to AB' for the purpose of implementation of AB'; and (e) the defendant did not have any specific purpose of implementation of the AB's academic relation by requesting 'the defendant's academic advantage to AB who is the professor and the senior director of the convergence content department and the senior director of the AB; and (e) the defendant did not have any specific purpose of implementation of the AC's academic relation by accepting it explicitly or at least implicitly; and (e) the defendant did not have any specific purpose of implementation of the AC's academic relation between AF, AH and AB's academic relation.

A) Circumstances common to AF, AH, AI, and AJ subjects

(1) by M’s request for information on academic affairs, I, and M’’’’s request for the “special benefits on academic affairs,” until the first semester of 2016;

(A) M applied for an academic course in 2015 for a total of eight subjects (total of 20 credits) during the first semester, but only three credits have been granted in seven subjects with F grade, D-sexual grade for one subject, and grade is merely 0.11, and thus, he/she was issued an academic degree warning pursuant to Article 41(4) of the School Regulations (where the average grade at the end of a semester is less than 1.60) on August 31, 2015, and was temporarily closed on September 2, 2015 (the subject of an academic degree warning if the average grade at the end of a semester is less than 1.60).

(B) Meanwhile, M, as indicated in the [Entry and Departure List], has almost been staying in a foreign country from around March 2015 to August 2016 (Special 1230, 1231 pages), and on the other hand, from around March 2016 to August 2016, M, which is published through the database of the International Sports Association (FEI, Fitter Foundation Equere Internationale), the current status of the passage of the horse riding conference from around August 2016 to around August 2016 (FEI, 1131 pages).

[Entry and Entry Details]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

【FEI withdrawal Details】

A person shall be appointed.

(C) In light of the foregoing facts, although M entered the Ministry of Health, Science, and Technology on March 1, 2015, the FIG sports science department, M was still absent, it would have been subject to school affairs warning in the first semester of 2015, and I and M would have been sufficiently induced to request the faculty members of FI who continued to stay in Germany while M would be able to receive credits without concerns such as school affairs warning or expulsion.

(2) The relationship between I, K and the defendant

(가) I은 2015. 8. 말경 내지 9.경 F대를 방문하면서 피고인에게 전화로 '체육학과 들렀다가 학장님 자리 있으면 뵙고 싶다'고 하였고(특7799쪽), AB은 피고인으로부터 'M 어머니가 찾아갈 것이다'라는 전화를 받은 다음 사무실에서 I을 만났으며(특4542쪽), 당시 I은 AB에게 다음 학기에 복학하면 학사관리가 잘 될 수 있도록 부탁한다고 말하였고(특4544쪽), 이후 I은 학장실로 가 피고인을 만났다(특7799쪽).

(B) During the Defendant’s talking with K and this F, the Defendant clarified that K would want to meet I (7800 pages) and set the date on which K agreed to meet on September 21, 2015, and I came to a school hall on the same day, and then divided the Defendant’s travel to the president room and the dialogue on M, etc. (specific 5696, 7805 pages).

(다) K는 2015. 10. 7. 오후 피고인, I과 만나 총장 관용차(체어맨)에 함께 탑승하여 총장 공관으로 이동하여 저녁식사를 같이 하였고, 당시 K, 피고인은 I의 휴대전화로 독일에 체류하는 M와 통화를 하면서 격려의 말을 건넸으며, I은 K에게 쿠키를 선물하고 K는 에게 뒷면에 F대 영문명인 'F UNIV.'가 적힌 점퍼 2개를 선물하였다(특7757, 7802, 7806, 7810).

(3) liaison with AA’s school affairs warning and replacement of guidance professors;

(A) The Ministry of Education called, “A”, a leader of M’s athletic team, called, “A”, to hold a meeting with M(1316 pages). From March 2016, the Ministry of Education called, “A”, “A was subject to the three bachelor’s warning by telephone to M’s private village 22” and “A was subject to another school inspector’s warning if he/she fails to attend this semester, so he/she would be subject to another school inspector’s warning. Then, [A’s legal statement in his/her currency was punished (A’s legal statement). On the other hand, I called, “A” and “K and the Defendant several times of telephone until March 25, 2016 to March 28, 2016 (integrated list No. 1219, No. 5835).

(B) AA received a call from the Defendant around March 28, 2016 at the laboratory. Around March 28, 2016, AA received the call from the Defendant, and I found the laboratory as well as the goal of us’s father and her mother as a Franch in the Olympic Games rather than departing from the place of Franch. However, I returned to AA’s legal statement that the professor is able to blick students and flick the flick, i.e., how the flick in the military market, and how the flicker would be flicked, i.e., how the flicker would be flick in the military market (A’s legal statement).

Since then, AA found the defendant and talks about 1's visit and behavior, the defendant suggested that A be replaced by a guidance professor, and AA accepted it (the 1321 pages).

(C) On March 29, 2016, in M’s name, the message stating that “When the Internet is not easily connected to Germany, if you will be able to see the content of the teaching lecture? If you would be able to see if you would be able to see the data column?” was sent to AD and CV through E (F cyber campus) (inter 1132 pages, 2073 pages).

(4) Fate-to-face visits of I and M;

I depart from Germany on March 30, 2016 and returned to Korea on April 15, 2016 (Special 10173 pages, 1230 pages). After that, I and M visited Fran on April 18, 2016 and around the 20th day of the same month, and visited K, the Defendant, as well as the professor in charge of the subjects for which M applied for enrollment, such as AB, AC, and AD. However, on April 18, 2016 and around the 20th day of the same month, I visited K, the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, and the professor in charge of the subjects for which I applied for enrollment. However, on April 18, 2016 and around the 20th day of the same month, after having been absent on the day of all subjects until M had no choice but to submit data to MU, except for the number of hours of absence, even after the completion of the class hours.

(5) a sudden increase in credits and normal points after the first semester of 2016;

M was 3.30 credits to be acquired in the first semester of 2016. However, compared to the first semester of 2015 and the first semester of 2016 and the first semester and the second semester of 2016, there is no evidence to find that there are special differences in M’s degree of participation in class, achievement of goals, academic achievement, etc. in each subject, and there is no difference in the fact that M continues to be absent. Furthermore, the fact that this case K, the Defendant and the Defendant accumulated a pro-friendly relationship with each other, and that I, and M was added only to K and the fact that M visited and visited the number of professors in charge with the Defendant around April 2016, it is difficult to easily reflect the overall sexual explanation, etc. without due consideration for the attendance recognition, recognition of the attendance, and rapid consideration of the attendance, and the comprehensive sexual explanation, etc. of the attendance.

(6) Parental relationship between the Defendant and I

(A) [A] Around September 2015, the Defendant made a call more than 30 times from October 22, 2015 to May 31, 2016 (2015.76,2232 pages). AB made a statement that the Defendant made a call to the head of a department and made a contact with the head of a department on the fact that the Defendant made the call and made the visit to the head of the department on September 2015, 2015, stating that “The introduction of a student’s parents to the head of the department would be an example,” and “the Defendant thought that it is reasonable for him to have a close relationship” (Special 4543 pages). Meanwhile, the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant divided this talk with AB, but the Defendant made a statement that “in order to see the academic problems and the overall school life of the Defendant.” (5805 pages).

(B) After the president’s meal (OF foundation on October 7, 2015) in the president’s mission, I found the FF unit for sports-related foundation (DF foundation)’s business affairs or recommendation of executive officers, and made an independent call (Special 5842, 5843), DG as the president of the DF foundation, DH, DI as the executives of DF foundation, DH, DI as the executives of DF foundation, and DJ as male employees (Special 5843-5846 pages, 7247 pages).

(C) Around May 2016, the Defendant met I at DK hotel coffee shop, and thereafter arrived at DL and DM, and he stated to DL that DL referred to as "DL's contact contact point for him to recommend the president of the Foundation," and divided the Defendant's conversation, and that it is not easy to find out the Defendant's contact if he finds a suitable person, and that DL was friendly with each other (Special 5847 pages). On the other hand, DL was friendly by dividing DL and the Defendant's morality."

(D) The Defendant stated that “N has the husband’s name in the name of the husband.” (Special 5848 pages) Meanwhile, DN, the husband of the Defendant, was recruited to the president of the DO Foundation around October 2016 (Special 5850, 7754 pages), and DP’s business pocket book included “N” (Special 796 pages).

(B) relating to AF and AH, AI subjects (AB, AD, AE);

(1) Advice, etc. on the defendant's application for taking lectures

The defendant stated that "I mentioned in the sports science and subjects before the first semester of 2016 and asked whether he would be able to attend the school (special 5692, 5816 pages) and AB stated that "I would be able to say that M would be a requisite for the defendant to attend the AF lecture during the first semester of 2016 (legal statement, special 4551 pages)," and the defendant appears to have given advice on the application for the course before the beginning of the first semester of 2016.

(2) AB’s statement on the Defendant’s “the Defendant’s preferential treatment in school affairs” and its credibility.

(A) From April 2016 to this Court, AB consistently made a statement to the effect that the Defendant called J and M as the office of the Ministry of Education’s audit, inspection, special examination, and this court, “AB's office of the Ministry of Education,” and that “AD and AE who are professors of subjects to be taken by MM in contact with the subject AD and E to make management of M credits.” (Legal statement, 4545 pages, 98, 993 pages), “AD and AE phone calls to deliver the Defendant’s oral intent, and MaD sent it to the Defendant’s office, and it was difficult for the Defendant to reach the J and M as his office (legal statement, 4547 pages, hereinafter referred to as “the first 2nd 16th 2nd 2nd 16th 16th 201).” On the other hand, the Defendant’s 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 16th 2nd 3th 2016th 2nd 3th 201.

The above AB’s statement is not only consistent, but it is not possible to find any motive to grant ‘the preferential treatment for school affairs' to M in addition to the defendant’s request, and there is no incentive to deliver ‘the preferential treatment for school affairs' to AD and AE as seen below, and the above statement is considerably high in credibility.

(B) According to the evidence Nos. 5 (Recording), AB stated that, on November 11, 2016, AB made a call with the Defendant and stated that “(credit) is not a snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick.” However, as seen earlier, AB made a statement on November 8, 2016 that it was already given by the Defendant’s officer of the Ministry of Education to the effect that AB had already received an instruction for special education (up to 986 pages) from the Defendant (up to 993 pages) and AB made a statement unfavorable to the Defendant in the face of the Ministry of Education on November 13, 2016.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 14 and 24 (the defendant's monetary records), the defendant and AB (DB) made a cell phone call on April 18, 2016, but the AB made a statement that the defendant and AB did not have any record because they were drank at the school from this court to divers," and there is no fact that AB made a telephone call on the defendant's diversary beneficiary as a cell phone in the audit and special examination of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Education, there is no fact that AB made a cell phone call on the defendant's diversary beneficiary as the defendant's defense counsel, and it is difficult to view that there is no mobile phone details.

(C) Meanwhile, AX made a statement to the effect that 'AB was assisted by 'AB for the major subjects' in relation to the application for a two-seme course at a special examination, and AB made a statement to the effect that 'AB was assisted by 'AB' on August 11, 2016, 'M money to AX', 'M money to 'M’, culture subjects', 'Ivove the speech that the rest of the subjects can be asked to receive credits as a task together with the recognition of attendance (Special 4001 pages), and AB made a statement to the effect that 'AB had a considerable interest in managing the bachelor's affairs in 2016, 'AB'(legal statement, 4557 pages).

(3) AB’s statement of AD and AE pertaining to AB’s request for the preferential treatment of school affairs

(A) AD, AE also stated that, in accordance with AB’s instructions or requests, AB would be granted “the preference to academic affairs” to M.

① From April 18, 2016, AD asked AB to post a phone on the 11:40 to 11:55 on April 18, 2016, AD sent a message to M through DE to the effect that: (a) during the period between 11:40 and 11:55 on April 18, 2016, M and J met with AB (207, 2079 pages); (b) M did not submit the task at all; (c) M did not appear to have been given any contact to M by June 20, 2016 (2085 pages); and (d) AB did not appear to have been given to the effect that “the F. discretion to grant credits” was to the effect that CB did not have any specific direction to the prosecution (208B) but did not appear to have been given any more than “the F. discretion.”

② At the prosecutorial office, the AE called “AB’s communication that it would have been met with Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma (164 pages), but did not reach MaB’s communication (164 pages), and called “AB’s phone call whether or not it would have heard four classes?” so, the AE made it impossible to enter into a riding special class. It was called “AE’s appearance. Recognizing this, I would like to recognize Ma Ma Ma’s appearance, I would like to know NA only F credits,” and “I would like to know NA’s intention to refuse the direction of the director due to her part-time lecturer(1637 pages and statements, while maintaining the prosecutorial statement at the special prosecutor’s office, I did not necessarily follow instructions given by AB.” (Special pages).

(B) There is no content about AD, AE's prosecutor's office and alcohol for special examination, or the defendant. However, AB made a statement in AD, AE that ‘the defendant, who is the principal of the study, was sent to AE' in this court, that it was expected that I would have the position of the principal of the study or the influence of the principal at the time when IE asked AD and AE for ‘the special benefit for school affairs'. Even if the defendant did not mention AD and AE, it would not interfere with the recognition of the public relations unless he sent the content to AD and AE.

(4) Whether AB provided ‘the special benefits of school affairs' while engaging in so-called ‘the so-called ‘the direct trade' with I

(A) According to the evidence No. 7 (AB related), the above article states that "JC's personal fee is written. AB sent a text message to AB during the second semester of 2016 in his conspiracy." However, even according to the above media report, it was known that the Defendant is a student who is specially managed by the Defendant from the first semester after the lapse of '(AB)'. It is difficult to view it as a content corresponding to the "direct trade" alleged by the Defendant, and as seen earlier, AB received from the Defendant a request from the Defendant to the effect that she would help the Defendant apply for taking lectures and manage school affairs during the second semester of 2016 (Special 458 et al., hereinafter referred to as "Special 458 et al.").

(B) Furthermore, there is no evidence that AB took a special consideration or a private interest from the I, and there is a content of contact with AB, but it appears that AB was limited at the time of the visit to the IF, and if AB met B, the defendant was able to contact AB in advance or move AB to the school site, and it is difficult to view AB was able to have accumulated a personal friendly relationship with I as the defendant, and even if AB did not follow the instructions of the defendant, it is difficult to separately suggest that AB made a request for the "special benefits of school affairs" for the subjects in charge of AD and AE as well as for the subjects in charge of AB, even though I did not contact with the defendant.

C) AJ subjects (AC) related to AJ subjects

(1) Advice on Defendant 1’s application for taking lectures

The AX stated that 'AJ and CT 2 subjects were added to the J at the time of 2016 1 semester course in the special prosecutor's order to organize 4 major subjects at the time of '2016 1 semester course,' and the defendant stated that 'AX and CT 2 subjects were to be applied to the J (Special 3986 pages)', and that 'the defendant also asked 'AJ prior to 2016 'the 201 semester 'the 2016 'the 201 semester 'the 201 semester 'the 2006 'the 201 semester 'the 5692 ' the 5692 ')' and 'the 'the 1st 'the 5827 'the 'the 1st 'the 1st 'the 1st 'the 1st 'the 1st 'the 1st 'the 1st '.

(2) AC’s statement and its credibility on the Defendant’s request for the “special preference to school affairs”

(A) AC began to be recognized as a substitute for one’s criminal act upon the Defendant’s request for the above statement at AJ’s special examination (the special 3135 pages) and thereafter, from that date, up to that time, the Defendant consistently asked M’s credits three times in total, and immediately before J and M were found as laboratory, the Defendant requested M’s telephone at the time immediately before J and M were about April 2016, at the same time, at the meeting of the principal of the Department, and later requested the principal of the Department to do so at the meeting of the Department. In light of the fact that the principal of the Department would normally have been able to do so at the time of his request, and that it would normally have been able to do so at the time of his request by the principal of the Department, the Defendant appears to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have a close relation with the Defendant I and his parents, and 36 of his family members.

(B) Although AC did not mention the Defendant’s request for “the Defendant’s academic preference” from the date of the Ministry of Education’s audit to the date of the special examination, it appears that AC itself could not make a statement about the Defendant because it denied its overall criminal act as a suspect who is subject to a suspicion of academic preference, and AC stated in the auditor of the Ministry of Education that “the Defendant has made a statement that he would have given the Defendant a good opportunity for an athletic specialist (162 pages),” and in the written statement dated December 29, 2016, that “I have received a request from the Defendant to consider an athletic specialist’s attendance at the meeting of the head of the department” (Special 2780 pages), and in the special examination, “I have expressed that the Defendant’s athletic specialist has changed the attendance and sexual convenience because the Defendant’s students have heard the subjects,” and that there was a continuous request from the Defendant for his criminal act (Special 3127 pages).

(C) The defendant argued that M was not allowed to attend the school within the school without using his expression "I king", but he did not want to do so. However, on September 21, 2015, K divided I am at the president's office, and this is the same as K I am having talked about M's temporary absence. It seems that M I am too difficult to give his personal training, and that M I am I am at school since its entrance, it is difficult to see that M I am to attend the school in Germany, and that it is hard to see that it was a 60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-70-60-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-

(D) In addition, the AC made a statement to the effect that "AK, which most of the academic affairs of the AJ subjects, has been carried out as the assistant instructors of the AC, was re-written (Special 3202 pages), was about the student who was requested by the principal of the AJ, and particularly, was aware of whether AC was well-written (Special 3202 pages), and AC also referred to as a student requested by the principal of the AK (legal statement), and it is difficult for AC to find external factors or motives to give "the academic special benefits to M," instead of the defendant's request.

(E) According to the evidence Nos. 14, the Defendant and AC (DDR)’s phone call on April 20, 2016 and April 20, all were 12:11, but AC stated that, although what the media is the monetary media in this court, it was not memoryed, it was clearly made twice the Defendant and the Defendant on the day, and as seen earlier, it can be sufficiently exchanged with AB on the same day as AB. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is no conversation between the Defendant and AC as the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion.

(3) Whether AC has received the request of 'the special benefits of school affairs' from K or CR

(A) According to the evidence Nos. 4-1 (AC) of the above news report, the above news report contains the contents of M’’’’’’’’’’ interview only once and the President of K and AC professor. The credit was also expressed, while M is merely an interview with the above two persons, it is difficult to view that M was requested by K who is not the defendant of AC, as argued by the counsel. In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 13 ( Press Report), the above news report contains a statement that “DU professor, which is the seat of DSS, actively participated in the examination.” The defense counsel stated that the Defendant’s counsel is “DU professor,” and it is clear that M is the subject of the above report’s academic record and its history under the premise that M was “DK’s academic record” (the above report).

In addition, the defendant's defense counsel answers "AC" when the defendant called AC, "AC", and this is because K is the same as I, or I contacts AC immediately after the president's office and immediately after I went into the president's office, and AC became aware of the visit on the part of I. However, I and M appear to have been visiting the president's office on April 18, 2016 and even according to the defense counsel's assertion, since I and M visited AC's office on April 20, 201, it is inconsistent with each of the above arguments.

(B) According to the evidence Nos. 4-2 (AC-related) of the media reports, the panel, which contributes to the current events of the general programming channel, has worked as a DV member led by the J.

Although the statement stating that "M was given preferential treatment in the Nexpanion of this large power," and "DV members were made in March 2014, such statement also becomes an additional appointment with CR, it appears that it was merely a subjective opinion of the above panel, and there is no special ground, and it is difficult to view the above statement alone as being requested by AC from CR, not the defendant, as argued by the defense counsel.

Furthermore, while AC is called the fact that it was active as a member of DV, it first examines the name of DV after the occurrence of the ‘CR'. While it was active as a member of DV, I stated that it was at the risk of gathering the CR at all (1432 pages) and 'CR' (1432 pages), even if it was examined in the whole the CR's special inspection statement (144 pages below 8735 pages) and there is no reference to AC, and there is no evidence that AC and CR had gathered with respect to FF academic affairs or M after March 2016.

(4) Whether the statement made by AC on the defendant's provisional initiative and the defendant's request for special benefits in school affairs is contradictory at the time

(A) According to the evidence Nos. 11-1 and 2 (each newspaper article) of the above article, each of the above articles stated that "(in the special examination, detained) AC professor stated that "at the time of the investigation, the defendant, who was at the time of the ambling disease, was in a situation where he was faced with his hair, and was asked to do so. M well," and evidence Nos. 8-1 through 8 (each medical certificate and opinion) and evidence Nos. 12 (medical certificate) of the evidence No. 8, the defendant was diagnosed on June 17, 2016 and was subject to ambalcism on June 20, 2016, and he was found to have received treatment such as ambalc cancer, etc., and thereafter, the defendant was absent from his hair at the time of his appearance on June 20, 2016, and thus, the defendant's counsel was present at the time of Mabalc's appearance on June 26, 2016 (the above).

(B) However, as appearing in each of the above articles, AC, which stated that it cannot do an interview directly with a media company, and AC, which stated that it was not in a situation in which it was detained by this court, and that "the defendant is in a situation in which it was allowed to do an interview," and "M was well-known," but it is different from each other. It is difficult to see that AC had an interview such as the above newspaper article, and it is also difficult to see that AC made a contradictory statement at the point of time in the special examination.

D) Circumstances relating to the e-mail of Q on September 27, 2016

The defendant's defense counsel stated the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 15 of the evidence No. 6-2. The defendant asserted that the legitimacy of strict school affairs management to AB and AC was made. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2 (each note) of the evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-2 (each note), it is acknowledged that Q sent the e-mail (hereinafter "e-mail of this case") that notifies M to submit the "main task", "on September 27, 2016," "on the spot search site of sports education", etc. It is difficult to view that the above e-mail of this case was credibility of the AB and AC's statements in light of the facts duly adopted and examined by the court and the circumstances that can be known from the above facts.

(A) As seen earlier, AB and AC understood the Defendant’s references as “the special benefits of school affairs,” and thus, despite the continuous absence, it was practically unlawful to recognize the Defendant’s appearance, sexual evaluation was conducted, and the Defendant’s influence on both AF, AH, AI, and the AJ subjects resulted in static opposition to the strict management of school affairs in both AF, AH, AI, and the AJ subjects. Furthermore, the time when I and M visited F major was made from April 18, 2016 to April 20, as the time when I and M had already met the half of the first semester of 2016, the purpose was to refer to the strict management of school affairs.

Myeon 1, as well as AB and AC, emphasizes at least the alternative task corresponding to the above existing absence, and the task for which future curriculum can be recognized, and at least the absence is difficult to accept or at least should have referred to the securing of clear evidence, but there is no such content in AB and AC’s statement.

(B) On April 18, 2017, Q presented to this court the purport that “the e-mail of this case is not a e-mail prepared by the specific instruction or instruction of the ar-mail,” and Q stated that “No special talk, including the head of the department, the head of the school, the professors, etc., is presented” in the statement prepared by the special prosecutor (specially 4823 pages) and that it does not receive any instruction or request concerning the management of academic affairs, whether it is unfair or unreasonable, or not.

(C) Even based on the evidence Nos. 15 (Kax text of Defense Counsel and C Q), it is very insufficient to reverse the credibility of the statements AB and AC because it was merely a general advice on instructors to the extent that C Q was referred to as "the same outline as that of a riding player." However, it was simply a short conversation at the time, and the Defendant was divided into short conversations, and that talks was not merely a general advice on instructors to inform the students of the tasks, attendance, etc. and to receive it well for the students."

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments regarding the obstruction of the work related to the Franchisian school affairs of the defendant and his defense counsel.

3. Violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at National Assembly;

A. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion

Since the Defendant did not make any statement contrary to memory or any statement contrary to objective facts at the time, the perjury is not established.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Whether a witness’s testimony constitutes a false statement contrary to memory or not shall be determined by understanding the whole of the testimony during the relevant examination procedure as a whole, rather than by the simple Section of the witness’s testimony. Where the meaning of testimony in itself is unclear or diversely understood, it shall be determined after clarifying the meaning of the testimony in question, by taking into account the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context before and after the testimony in question was made, the context before and after the testimony in question, the purport of the examination, the circumstances during which the testimony was made, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5252, Dec. 27, 2001). Although the testimony is not a basic matter, it does not affect the establishment of perjury as long as it is a false statement (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3069, Jun. 8, 1982).

2) Determination as to whether a statement contrary to memory is made

A) The portion of the statement that L does not have the right to speak of the fact of assistance to Hous daughters

L was said to the effect that the Defendant would not know that H’s H’s father was supported to our school in this court, and that the Defendant stated that he was 23 items of expansion and S, and that he was able to think of and stated that he had been her in the horse race, and that L was her h’s horse, and that he was her in the next day, and that L was her her h’s horse, and that “the report of the special features prepared around September 24, 2014,” and “the HWP file of the “computer” program (special 1553 pages) in the HWP file (special 153 pages). Accordingly, according to the fact that the Defendant reported L to L that he was her her N’s H’s assistance to the H’s model in the year 2015 athletic professionals.

B) The statement that P did not have any material support from H’s father

(1) 피고인은 이 법정에서, 2014. 9.경 P으로부터 만나자는 연락을 받았다는 점, 2014. 9. 12. 오후 Q호텔 커피숍에서 P을 만났다는 점, P으로부터 "건너 건너서 아는 집 아이가 F대 수시모집에 승마종목 체육특기생으로 지원했다"는 말을 들었다는 점, 피고인이 "국가 대표냐, 1등 하는 아이냐"고 물었더니 P이 "그렇다, 어려서부터 승마만 열심히 했다고 한다"고 대답했다는 점, P이 헤어질 때 "그 아이가 애다"라는 말을 하며 "N"의 이름이 적힌 쪽지를 주었다는 점, 이로부터 10여일쯤 지나 P으로부터 "전에 말하던 아이가 S 승마종목에 출전했는데, 금메달을 땄다"는 전화를 받았다는 점, P으로부터 전에 말한 승마특기생의 합격여부를 알 수 있느냐'라는 전화를 받고 L에게 전화하여 승마특기생의 합격여부를 물어본 다음 P에게 전화를 해서 합격을 알려주었다는 점을 진술하였는바, 피고인의 위 법정진술에 의하더라도 P과 입시 관련 이야기를 나누지 않았다고 부인하는 이 부분 진술은 명백한 허위라고 할 것이다.

(2) In addition, considering the above L's statement, i.e., whether the Defendant was aware of N's her husband's her husband's oral statement, i.e., whether N's her husband was not H's her husband's statement, she knows M's her husband's her husband, and M's her husband was aware of horse riding from the time her husband got out, the Defendant eventually divided the conversations between P and H n'''''''s her her son's her son's assistance and her her son's her son's her son's her son's her son's her son's behavior at the time of the conversation with the Defendant. Furthermore, in light of the fact that P's her her son's her son's her son's son's her son's her son's her son's her son's her husband's her her husband's her her.

C) The statement that "H's denial is found to A and that there is no letter stating that "A is sent well."

(1) AA가 교육부 감사관과의 면담에서 작성된 보고서에는 '학장으로부터 "J이왔고, H 부인이며, AA 교수에 대해 좋게 말을 해 놨으니까 잘 해라 ..."란 전화를 받았음'이라는 기재가 있는 점(교948쪽), AA는 검찰에서 '제가 오후에 제자와 연구실에서 이야기를 하고 있는데 피고인 전화가 와서 "지금 H 부인이 찾아갈 텐데, 잘 해서 보내 줘"라는 식으로 이야기를 했다'(검1317, 1318쪽), '(이) 수십 여분이 지나도록 오지 않다가 노크나 전화 등 아무런 기색도 없이 갑자기 문을 벌컥 열고 들어왔습니다'(검 1318쪽)라고 진술한 점, 이 법정에서도 위 진술을 유지하면서 이 자신의 연구실에 찾아왔던 날, 피고인이 미리 전화로 "지금 H 부인이 찾아갈 텐데, 잘 해서 보내줘"라는 식으로 이야기 하였다고 진술한 점을 종합하면, AA는 교육부 감사 이래 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 이 부분 공소사실에 부합하는 진술을 하여 신빙성이 높아 사실로서 인정된다고 할 것이고, 피고인의 변호인이 지적하는 AA의 초기진술에 나타난 시점상의 일부 착오만으로 위 진술의 신빙성이 무너진다고 보기 어렵다.

(2) Meanwhile, the defendant's defense counsel argued to the effect that he points out the uncertainty of the AA's statement or memory by doubtful the state of drinking at the time of the defendant's call. However, although he acknowledges that the AA enjoys alcohol at the time, it was not in a state of drinking at the time other AA's legal statement, i.e., the 2ndr who graduated from a doctor's degree, and stated that the 2ndr was in a laboratory at the time," 28th day of the 28th day of the 28th day of the 19th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 3th day.

D) AB, AC, etc. that they did not direct or request that they be able to receive ‘the preferential academic benefits' for M.

As seen earlier, as seen in the “Interference with Business Related to School Affairs”, the Defendant is recognized to have instructed or asked the AD, AE, and AI subjects with respect to the AF subjects in charge of AB, and the AH and AI subjects with respect to the AJ subjects in charge of AC, so this part of the statement is also false.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, we do not accept all the arguments regarding the violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 (Interference with Business, Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, Article 14(1) of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly (as a whole, the point of the National Assembly perjury)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty heavier than that prescribed by the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for one year to 15 years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes and concurrent crimes: Each crime of interference with business;

[Determination of Types] 1 (Interference with Business) interference;

[Special Esponsor] Where a person leads or directs a crime (Aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, Imprisonment from one year to three years and six months;

(b) Imprisonment with labor for a period of one year to six years;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

The Defendant, as the principal of a university of new and industrial convergence with five departments, at the time of committing the crime, was in charge of school affairs on behalf of the relevant university. Nevertheless, the Defendant accepted the entrance deposit from a high-ranking public official who was in a close relationship with him/her and conspired for unlawful selection by informing him/her of such fact. Furthermore, the Defendant, as university professors, who should attend school and be in charge of social education, has a duty to manage academic affairs with strict higher education and well-knownness, despite the fact that he/she is not responsible for his/her instructions, was unable to reach his/her own instructions, and that the Defendant was not in charge of unreasonable management of school science by allowing him/her to attend school and make a false evaluation of the convergence subjects in charge of other departments, thereby undermining the fairness and adequacy of equal social management, rather than referring to the fact that he/she would not have been in charge of unfair treatment of his/her school affairs.

However, the academic achievement register of students entitled to special educational benefits was modified to be given the F grade or U in all subjects after the audit and inspection by the Ministry of Education, and the unfair result from the Defendant’s act was corrected ex post facto due to the cancellation of the FF entrance itself. The Defendant, while working as the FF professor for the last 35 year, served as the head of the ministry in charge, the director of the dormitory, the director of the sports science university, the head of the motion science research institute, the senior secretary general, and the head of the health science university, and was dedicated for the F. In addition, the Defendant contributed to the academic and cultural development while serving as the members of various sports associations, sports associations, the educational council, the members and directors of the educational council, and the members of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, etc., and the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment prior to the instant case. Moreover, multiple FF graduates such as the Defendant’s expulsion and the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant and the Defendant’s opportunity to work together with the State and society.

In addition, the fact that the defendant was diagnosed with cancer on June 17, 2016 and undergone an operation on June 20, 2016 and was detained for a long time, the health condition is not significantly good as the defendant was detained. In addition, the defendant's age, character, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, means and result of the crime of this case, and various sentencing factors shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined like the order.

The presiding judge shall be changed.

Judges Tae-young

Judicial Chief Judge;

1) Even if all the evidence submitted by the special prosecutor is compiled, it is difficult to view that M is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that M has been recruited in relation to the interference with the relevant business when entering the F.M.

2) According to the provisions of Articles 6 (Organization of the School Affairs Council) and 7 (Authority of the School Affairs Council) of the F Department Organization, the F Board of Education has the authority to decide matters concerning the recruitment and circumstances of new students, which are composed of the President, Vice President, Vice President, Graduate, each graduate school principal, each university principal, Z University principal, Z University principal, Director of the Global Lifelong Education Institute, Director, Chief, Head of the School, Head of the Central Library and Director of the Career Development Center.

3) L and K are excluded, and at the time, the defendant and the director of the health science university, the director of the school, the director of the new school, the director of the school, the director of the new school, the design graduate school, the director of the clinical school, the director of the public school, and the director of the lifelong

4) According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the facts charged, which were written as if AC voluntarily conducted sexual inputs and submission of relevant sexual materials, are acknowledged as having been shared by AK and AL, and that AK printed out and submitted relevant sexual materials. Thus, the facts charged are revised as above, to the extent that it does not undermine the Defendant’s right of defense and the identity of facts charged, to the extent that AC voluntarily conducted sexual inputs and submission of relevant sexual materials.

5) In cases where an investigative agency is a special prosecutor, it is also indicated as a prosecutor’s office. The same applies hereinafter.

6) In the case of AU and AT, the fifth prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's office against I included the substitute part.

P In the case of P, the fifth prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant is included.

7) Evidence submitted by the special prosecutor is divided into three parts of the evidence prepared by the Ministry of Education, evidence prepared by the Ministry of Education, and evidence prepared by the special prosecutor, and the specific evidence is specified as ‘the ○○, the school CO pages', and ‘SpecialO pages', respectively, if it is necessary to display specific evidence.

In addition, the statement made in the audit of special cases by the Ministry of Education is indicated only as ‘education division auditor', ‘public prosecutor's or ‘public prosecutor's statement', and ‘special prosecutor' or ‘special prosecutor's statement', and ‘special prosecutor' or ‘special prosecutor's statement'.

8) On September 23, 2014, 2014, AV stated that “(L) reported to the meeting of the Minister that H’s husband and wife submitted a written application and the new standard was submitted after the receipt of the written application (L25 pages),” and that “H-N (H) marking marking standards were stated in the “as a result of the meeting of the Secretary General on June 23, 2014 (L)” in the part of “H-N (H) marking standards as the result of the meeting of the Secretary General on September 23, 2014 (L)”.

9) The part “AV C. 23 September 2014 (L. 23, 2014)” states that “4. Process Management Report ○ + schedule, H-H (1) as a result of the General Meeting held on June 1, 2014,” and the part “as of September 24, 2014 (number),” states that “2. Work Management Committee, March 29, 201, and City City City Mayor/Do 12, and 5. Process Management Evaluation Data / Minutes (1) grading standards and document evaluation criteria (2) are submitted/concepted” (inter alia, 209 pages);

The above "O" portion does not constitute an identification.

10) According to the ordinary practices in which the president of the faculty of the sports science department and the professor with the lowest order is selected (Special 4646 pages), TB was commissioned as a member of the sports specialty type document screening around September 18, 2014 (Special 1384 pages), and AT was included as one recommended person (Special 4646 pages).

11) In the report on special matters, 800 points were stated, but this seems to be prior to applying the method of sexual conversion of document evaluation.

When applying the conversion method set out in the FF University 2015 ‘Principle of Special Examination of F.I.D. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S

500 points - 300 points (B grade 200 points x 100%) + (B grade 200 x 30%) + (B grade 200 x 20 %) + (B grade 200 x 20 %) + Comprehensive evaluation of 200 points in the year 2015 also reflects the following points in a comprehensive evaluation of 'total evaluation (200 points) in a quantitative and fixed manner. The current national representative or state representative: 200 points; at the time, AB, and AT, as a member of document evaluation, have also been stated to the effect that they will obtain 200 points in the comprehensive evaluation unless there are special circumstances, (D).

12) In the minutes of the Admission Process (1626 pages) dated September 29, 2014, "The standards for the rating of the gold-year Games shall be applied to the 2014-year standards."

13) 350 points = 150 points (C Grade 100 points x 100%) + (C Grade 100 points X30%) + (x20%) comprehensive evaluation

AT-T. AB Document Evaluation Table (School 475, 480, 485 pages) and sexual net list (School 495 pages).

14) AT stated that “T is not memory, but does not explain it as “T professor was without any person, and there was A,” and “T professor was not a professor,” and that “T professor was aware of his memory as in the machine memory,” (900, 3, and 4 pages), and even the prosecution stated that “L was called “L was the same as the Defendant, and the Defendant was informed that Hson was supported by our university” (1450 pages).

15) Conversion score = (average score X6 excluding the highest and lowest score) + 80

16) Each of the 'AH', 'A' is construed as only 'A'.

17) It is called "AJ" only.

18) According to the “Histroy” in the name of M, the subject of AF took place on February 16, 2016, and applied for several lectures on March 10, 2016. On February 17, 2016, AH took place in the office of the head of the Gu, and applied for a lecture on March 2, 2016. The AI subject was written in the office of the head on February 16, 2016, and was written in the office of the head on March 2, 2016. The AI subject was written in the office of the head on March 2, 2016. After the application for a lecture on March 2, 2016, the subject was deleted on March 8, 2016, and the subject was applied for a new lecture on February 15, 2016.

19) AB received a document in the form of a set of three copies, “a physical force required for riding players” through e-mail in the name of M on July 13, 2016 (No more than 1024 pages).

20) MOCC is a course that consists of courses for all people to attend without restriction on the number of students and for the purpose of learning defined in advance on the web-based, and K-MOC refers to the Korean-type online-type online lectures that are developed under the supervision of the National Institute for Lifelong Education.

21) According to the special 3934 pages, AK stated that it would be memoryed as submitted by it upon the direction of AC by the direction of AC.

22) AA made a statement at the prosecutor's office that DoD was called M's private village, and that DoD was considered to have received the phone (Ch 1317 pages).

23) On April 5, 2016, the defendant's multi-lock states that "the plan to review the retirement age guarantee system and the expansion of the right to guarantee retirement age to the principal of the school" (hereinafter referred to as "the 9097 pages).

24) The defense counsel presented as evidence a part of the response results against the order to submit the case to the court by extracting it.

25) The above article erroneously stated AC as DW.

26) On January 9, 2016, the term "on January 9, 2016" entered at the lower end is clearly written in writing, and later written confirmation of the investigation process that was compiled is written on January 9, 2017 (Special 4824 pages);