The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles do not dispute the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly.

A) The professor’s sexual evaluation work in charge of interfering with the task is the professor’s own task and the faculty management work of the director’s school administration is not a separate independent task as a kind of sexual management work after the evaluation of the professor’s sexual performance.

The head of the school affairs office does not have any substantial authority to examine or verify the appropriateness of the results notified by the professor in charge, and merely conducts the school affairs through mechanical calculation process on the premise that the results notified by the number of the teachers in charge are the fact of origin. As such, the head of the school affairs office used the misunderstanding, dismissal, or site of the director in charge.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes a deceptive scheme, which is a constituent element of the crime of interference with business.

The defendant does not dispute a public contest relationship with M, I, or K.

B) The answer sheet (hereinafter “the answer sheet of this case”) which is the ladra of a private document forgery teacher or a person holding the event of the above investigation document (hereinafter “the subject of this case”) cannot be deemed as a private document on fact certification, since it is not a document that proves an important fact or a document that emphasizes a subjective response on the issue, because it is not a document that proves an important fact, but a document that emphasizes an essential function.

K, along with I on April 2016, at the time of visiting the Defendant’s laboratory, gave an implied consent to the Defendant’s preparation of the answer sheet in this case, and on September 10, 2016, at the time of drawing up the answer sheet in this case, K would have naturally consented to the mind that the controversy at issue was not known.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles) O, P, the fact that the evidence forged teacher and the teacher of the use of forged evidence.