The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the extent that the initial facts and basic facts are identical to those of the original facts and do not disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, but the court below found the defendant not guilty

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding facts.

2. An ex officio prosecutor requested the original judgment to change the indictment in exchange for the instant facts charged, and this court revoked the decision of the lower court on July 20, 2018, and changed the subject of the judgment with the permission to change the indictment, and thus, the original judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading, on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.

【Grounds for another judgment】 The revised facts charged to the extent that there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant to exercise his/her right to defense against criminal facts was appropriately revised.

The Defendant served as the principal of a school foundation B C high school from March 1, 2011 to August 5, 2015.

Although the defendant's philosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolo could not apply for the philosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolo

Therefore, if the defendant newly establishes philosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosolosophical additional points after revising existing evaluation standards, and granting career recognition points to graduate school completion, D could pass the primary document screening.

In addition, if only the first screening has passed as above, from the year 2013 by the defendant.