The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 15.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles 1) Defendant B: (a) the interview duty of the interview commissioner is merely an evaluation of the items assigned to the interview stage; and (b) it is not a determination of right and wrong in the previous evaluation stage; (c) the situation where the interview commissioner’s manipulation was made in the document and the screening stage prior to the interview procedure cannot be said to be a matter subject to prior notification by the interview commissioner for performing the interview duty; and (d) the interview commissioner did not notify such matter.

This can not be seen as a deceptive scheme against the interview commissioner.

Second, in accordance with the Supreme Court precedents, when both the representative director and the interview members are recruited or understood to hire new employees, they do not constitute a crime of interference with business by deceptive means on the ground that there is no other party who caused mistake, misunderstanding, or sites, and there is no other party. In the case of this case, if some interview members were not aware of illegal recruitment due to a score manipulation, it would be punishable as a crime of interference with business by deceptive means on the ground that they interfered with the interview of the interview members, on the ground that it is against the principle of equity in the performance-based law.

2) Defendant E made a statement to the effect that Defendant E notified Defendant B of the fact that Q Q Q’s support to the recruitment process of new staff (5, 6 level) and properly asked Defendant E, and Defendant B notified Defendant B of the fact that Q’s support is difficult to pass through the above recruitment process screening process, and delivered Defendant B the intention to show a somewhat comfortable response and waive support, and did not interfere with the instant business.

B. Sentencing 1) The Defendants’ respective punishment sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment; 160 hours of community service order; Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor; 1 year and 2 months of two months of suspended sentence of eight months; 2 years of suspended sentence of community service order; 120 hours of community service order; and Defendant E: 10 months of imprisonment.