The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) As to the interference with the additional employment of new employees in 2012, K and L, an interview member, consented to or understanding on the change in the interview score table, which led to the Defendant’s deceptive scheme.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the change of K and L points marks is irrelevant to the change of employment ranking, and the part of K's score marks is changed to the one employed as a successful applicant, so there was no risk of interference with business.

2) As to interference with the employment of internships in 2013, the Defendant added the number of applicants passing the screening process to give an additional opportunity to undergo a written examination, thereby hindering visitations’ interview duties.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) After presenting the task regarding interference with the employment of full-time employees in 2013, there was an agreement among the evaluation committee members on who will be eight persons in the final order of priority. However, the evaluation committee members, who expressed their opinions about some of the internships at that time, proposed that P, a member of the evaluation committee, was defective to determine the final successful applicant, and other evaluation committee members, who agreed to the decision. The evaluation committee members may be deemed to have implicitly consented to the subsequent revision of the evaluation scores.

As long as points have been changed under the consent or understanding of the members, there was a deceptive scheme against this by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1 Determination as to interference with the additional employment of new staff in 2012) The summary of this part of the facts charged and the summary of this part of the facts charged by the lower court’s determination is the chief director of the B Corporation (hereinafter “B Corporation”) with respect to the additional employment of new staff in 2012, a successful applicant of the new employment examination is the document screening and document screening.