Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

A shall be innocent.

Defendant B (Defendant B) is a person who served as G University H and Spanish social server in Boan City F from August 1, 2013 to November 7, 2016.

Defendant

B, around 14:30 on October 15, 2016, at the office of G University I 408, compiled the written examination scores by applicant, and at the office of G University I 408, it was found that J’s Korean language scores were 1 but 6 points in the file “the list of applicants for the examination from time to time in 2017”, and that the English scores were 4 points, but 6 points, even though E, E, E, E, M, N,O, P were 8 points but 20 points, respectively, were falsely entered, and then printed out the results of the examination to the second oral interview and was reflected in the first oral interview scores along with the second oral interview scores.

As a result, Defendant B interfered with H and occasional entrance inspections of the said G University in 2017 by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Each police statement made to Q, R and S;

1. Each written statement of T, U, and V;

1. Written self-sufficiency in X;

1. Copy of the test paper for sexual manipulation in the accusation;

1. A copy of an application for admission to each of the points he/she has earned prior to the operation, X-how data, and the final successful candidate's score;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording books;

1. The pertinent provision of the Criminal Act and Articles 314(1) and 313 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the reason for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] [the scope of business] interference with the business affairs, and there is no person [the person who is subject to special sentencing] in the basic area (six months to one year and six months] [the decision of sentence] [the defendant who is in charge of grading at the time of university admission]]. Above all, the defendant who is in charge of grading at the time of university admission, attempted to manipulate the written examination scores of specific applicants to arbitrarily raise the written examination scores of specific applicants, thereby seriously impairing the fairness of university admission, thereby seriously affecting the defendant's external credibility, and as a result, it cannot be sentenced to a sentence against the defendant.