Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,00, and Defendant B and C by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are currently working in the E University F department, and Defendant A among them is from March 1, 2016 to the same year.

8. By September, 800, the above school F and the principal professor (department leader) were employed, and victim G is the victim F and professor.

In 2016, the above university decided to employ new F full-time faculty members, and assessed the applicants at each stage of qualification examination, major deputy examination, career examination, and major examination in accordance with the new employment regulations of the former faculty members.

On July 19, 2016, the Defendants and the victims G attending meetings related to the three multiple recommendation of candidates to be appointed by the F Department and the victim G, and the Defendants expressed their opinions that the results of the examination of the major examination of candidates to be appointed cannot be accepted, or that they would not recommend candidates to be appointed, and the victims G expressed their opinions that they should recommend candidates to be appointed.

Defendant A, a major professor, did not recommend a candidate to be appointed. On August 10, 2016, the president of the above university ordered Defendant A to be exempted from F and senior professors and from the position of president. At the same time, the president of the above university ordered the Victim G to engage in F and senior professors and duties.

On the same day, the victim G was requested by the president of the above university to recommend candidates to be appointed by the president of the above university, and recommended candidates to be appointed three times in order of high-ranking braille.

There is no fact that the victim G, the president of the University, the principal of the school affairs, and the principal of the student has proceeded with the personnel procedures for the purpose of unfairly selecting a specific applicant.

1. The Defendants conspired, around August 11, 2016, at the office of Defendant A located in the Sinnam-si University located in H, and, unlike the Defendants’ opinions, at the same time prior to the aforementioned recruitment process, female applicants, who obtained the highest score as a new professor, have been selected as a final professor, and would prejudice the victim G, with the aim of “the president of our university, the principal of the school affairs, the principal of the student department, and the director of the information and communications data,” and “the F and the professor will thoroughly express their opinions in collusion.”