The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Gender Equality and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (hereinafter “Equal Employment Opportunity Act”), Article 7(1) of the Gender Equality Act shall not discriminate on grounds of gender in recruitment or employment of workers.

“The discrimination between men and women” refers to treating a woman unfairly on the ground that the person is either a male or female without any reasonable ground (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du3476, Jul. 28, 2006). The lower court, on the grounds the reasoning stated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant did not select a woman as a final successful applicant by discriminating against a female without any reasonable ground in relation to the employment of each of the first half half half-year employees in 2015 and 2016.

On the other hand, this part of the charges was found guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the equal employment of both men and women.

2. As to interference with business

A. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court convicted all of the charges of interference with business (excluding the part on which the first instance court acquitted the Defendant) among the charges of this case.

(1) Deliberation on the employment of personnel of the personnel committee of the agency AE constitutes an independent business of interference with affairs.

(2) The Defendant arbitrarily changed the interview points of the applicants during the employment process of each of the first half-year employees in 2015 and 2016, and performed the deliberation work under the circumstances where the members of the personnel committee were aware that the interview points were true, and thus, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s final recommendation of successful applicants and employment of the AE agency by deceptive means.

It is reasonable to view it.

(3) The Defendant is a person in charge of employment in response to a solicitation in the process of hiring the first half-year staff in 2015.