Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B The Director of the I Supervisory Official in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant A is an administrative officer in charge of the affairs of personnel and contract of the above Supervisory Official, and the Defendants from July 3, 2017 to the same year.

8. Until February 8, 200, a new employment examination was conducted by the office staff equivalent to class 8 of the term of office, and the J of the above new employment examination is the wife of the defendant B, who is the father of the defendant B.

The I Supervisory Official shall be a scholarship facility established on November 10, 1990 by the I to foster excellent students from the I, and L officers and employees of the incorporated foundation entrusted with the operation of the I Supervisory Official under the provisions of the I Supervisory Official Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the I Supervisory Official shall faithfully perform their duties in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the above Ordinance and the I Supervisory Official Operation Rules, and new employment of the I Supervisory Official shall be lawful and fair by applying mutatis mutandis the Local Public Officials Act in accordance with the I Supervisory Official Operation Regulations.

1. On July 26, 2017, Defendant A’s alteration of private documents was ordered by the Party B, who was in charge of telephone call, to pass the examination of documents, and around July 27, 2017, the Defendant changed the part of the examination of the job plan from “the grading sheet for the employment examination of fixed-term employees by 2017” of the J, which was marked by the Director M of the Counseling Department, as a document-type pen at the office of the above school inspector, on July 27, 2017.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising authority, the Defendant modified one copy of “the rating of the document screening for employment examination for fixed-term employees” in M, which is a private document to prove facts without authority.

2. On July 27, 2017, Defendants who interfere with the Defendants’ duties were aware of the changes in the grading table to J under the direction of Defendant B that Defendant B passed the document screening process, such as the preceding paragraph, but he was aware of it while M confirmed the successful applicants’ list. Defendant B erred in the standard for document screening, and thereby, the document screening grading procedure.