2017No1975 Business Obstruction, Private Document Forgery, Evidence Forgery, and Misappropriation

(A) a certificate of forgery, i.e., an event of an authorized crime;

Use (name of a modified crime, forgery, use of evidence), deceptive public service

Obstruction of Execution, Violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at National Assembly

A

Both parties

Special Prosecutor Park Jong-young ( Prosecution)

Special Prosecutor, higher than assistant special prosecutor, dispatched inspection units, promotion, and immigration trial (public trial)

Law Firm B, Attorneys C, and D

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gohap49. 190 (Consolidated) Decided June 23, 2017

November 14, 2017

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

A) The duties of the faculty in charge of interference with the performance of duties are the duties of the faculty in charge, and the duties of the faculty in charge of the academic management of the faculty in charge cannot be deemed a separate independent independent work, as a type of sexual management work after the evaluation of the results by the faculty in charge. The principal of the school affairs has no substantial authority to examine or verify the appropriateness of the results notified by the faculty in charge, and merely conducts the academic management work through the mechanical calculation process on the premise of the results notified by the faculty in charge as the fact of the nature. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes a deceptive scheme, which constitutes the element of the crime of interference with the business.

B) The answer sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the answer sheet of this case”) which is the error of the crypter of a private document forgery teacher or a private document displayer (hereinafter referred to as “the subject of this case”) is merely an opinion stating a very subjective answer about the issue, and it is not a document that emphasizes a document proving an important fact or a document certifying an important fact, and thus cannot be deemed as a private document regarding a certificate of fact.

K, on April 2016, 2016, it is presumed that K gave implied consent to the preparation of the answer sheet of this case by the defendant at the time when the defendant visited the defendant's laboratory, and on September 10, 2016, at the time of the preparation of the answer sheet of this case, K naturally consented to the mind that the controversy at issue is not known.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) It is reasonable to evaluate that the defendant committed a crime of obstruction of business by using the same criminal intent as the defendant's own, or by recognizing his act as illegal, because it is difficult to view that the defendant himself or herself had the same criminal intent (in fact giving him or her an improper grade) to commit a crime of interference with business, it is reasonable to evaluate that the defendant committed a crime of obstruction of business in the form of a single or an indirect crime. The defendant's act of forcing 0 and P to commit an act of obstruction of business against K illegally in the subject of this case shall not be deemed to belong to the defendant, and it shall not be deemed to belong to 0 and P as an accomplice. The defendant and 0, P is in the relation of accomplice in the crime of interference with business with the defendant, and the answer of this case, sexual X-ray file and attendance book (hereinafter referred to as "the evidence of this case") may be forged in the criminal case or disciplinary case, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B) The point of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

The Defendant submitted the evidence of this case which was falsely fabricated in the process of the audit of special cases in the Ministry of Education, and actively made false statements with the assistant 0, P, and so on, the auditor had the person in charge of the audit investigate the facts different from the substance of this case and make it difficult to prevent or practically obstruct the audit of the auditor. The lower court, which denied the establishment of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

(a) Point of interference with business;

1) Another person’s business

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below, as stated in its reasoning, stated legal principles on the crime of interference with business: ① sexual credits appraised by a professor in charge is not only a unit of study at a university, but also a basis for recognizing higher education-related school subjects, total number of credits acquired, etc.; ② Matters concerning the attendance of the subjects applied for education can be determined as well as academic records; ③ the results appraised by a professor in charge are the basis for the management of academic affairs at a university, ③ the graduation, completion, attendance, education, education, school administration, school affairs, school administration, and other important data; ④ The Minister of Education determined that he/she is clearly in charge of the management of academic affairs at a university, and that he/she is not in charge of the management of academic affairs at a university, and that he/she is still in charge of the management of academic affairs at a university, and that it is clearly clear that he/she is in charge of the management of academic affairs at a university, and that he/she is in charge of the management of academic affairs and regulations at a university, and that he/she is in charge of the management of academic affairs at a university.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or of misapprehending of legal principles as to the identity of another person.

(ii)the conduct of deceptive means and criminal intent to the Director;

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, stated the legal principles on the crime of interference with business: ① The Defendant’s own score on the part of the online taking lectures was 50 points, and the remainder was 50 points on the off-line special lecture and the off-line oral examination; K did not appear. It is less than 70 points that passed since K did not appear. ② K did not notify the Defendant that there was a reason to recognize the attendance of the Defendant in connection with the off-line special lecture, and the off-line oral examination, or did not present evidentiary materials proving that the Defendant could not receive some of the points assigned to the off-line oral examination, such as additional tests or tasks, in accordance with the school regulations and the sexual regulations, and determined that the Defendant could not finally obtain some of the points assigned to the off-line oral examination, and that the Defendant did not have any reasonable ground to recognize the attendance of the off-line special lecture, and that the Defendant did not finally enter the off-line research system, which is an online out of the time limit of attendance.

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the crime of interference with business through deceptive means that an offender misleads the other party or causes a misunderstanding, dismissal, or site to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, which would result in the occurrence of the consequence of interference with business, and the act of inputting information into computers and other data processing devices, not itself, is established the crime of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Furthermore, if the act of inputting information into computers and other data processing devices for the purpose of causing mistake, mistake, or site of a person in charge of the business based on the input information, etc., it cannot be said that the act was not directly subject to the person in charge of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 201

In the crime of interference with business, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing interference with another person's business due to his/her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also indefinitely recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009).

(2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it constitutes a case where the Defendant, a professor in charge, was aware that he had been absent from the special lecture of the off-line, and that he would have intentionally taken an ordinary course and obtained the required credits, thereby making him mistake that the sexual evaluation was properly conducted, causing a misunderstanding that he would have caused the sexual evaluation to be duly conducted, and using the same, and thus, constitutes a case where he used a deceptive scheme. The decision of the lower court to the same purport is justified and acceptable, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misapprehending of legal principles as to deceptive schemes.

(1) The professor in charge enters Q Q in the class, scores, and number of absence hours, and the faculty team of the school affairs shall conduct affairs, such as school administration warnings, removals, promotions, completion, graduations, based on the results entered in Q as above. Separately, the professor in charge shall submit the grade table for subjects to the school affairs team through an administrative division of the college.0, around June 16, 2016, to the Defendant and the Research Institute of MOC Center Y of the MOC Center Y in the column of K's grade (i.e., offline special class, offline weather, online course) is all column, and K's class (i.e., "student's name x 3.e., "" x 9.e., the Defendant entered the minimum points that enable completion of K's class 3, 2000 or 6.e., the Defendant stated the 6.e., 10 or 6.e., 150 or 60 x-M points on the EX file. 2.e.m.

② Even if K did not attend the Rora special lecture on April 1, 2016 and did not take the lap lap test on June 2016, the Defendant, who is a professor in charge, intentionally disregards the regulations of school regulations and grants attendance approval and S grade without any documentary evidence is not allowed by itself by abusing or abusing the discretion of the professor in charge.

③ Article 40(2)2 of the school regulations, which was amended on June 16, 2016 and applied retroactively to March 1, 2016, provides that when a student is absent from an international competition, training, training, training, or training, etc., the professor in charge of the subject may be recognized as a person with attendance, if the student submits evidential documents within two weeks of the occurrence of the cause. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5-2 of the Regulations on Sexual Treatment of newly established June 16, 2016, where the student is unable to apply for an examination due to any cause falling under any subparagraph of Article 40(2) of the school regulations or any other similar cause, he/she shall report to the professor in charge of the subject within seven days of the date of the examination, and where the student fails to report in advance due to extenuating circumstances, the professor in charge of the subject may conduct an additional test on the completion of the subject or impose an additional test on the head of the institution (paragraph (2)).

K did not participate in or train an international conference that can replace the attendance during the period of one semester in 2016, and the defendant did not submit any documentary evidence for the international conference and training, so there is no room to apply the above provision.

④ The school register team of the school department is believed to provide evaluation data within the scope of discretion given by the professor in charge to comply with the Higher Education Act and the FF school regulations after recognizing his/her attendance and evaluating his/her performance within the scope of discretion and recognizing them as being sexually. If the professor in charge knew that he/she intentionally deviates from and abused the scope of discretion and provided false materials for recognition of attendance and sexual evaluation, it would not be deemed that it would be sexually recognized.

(5) In light of the fact that the Office of Education and Human Resources has the authority to ex post facto cancel the credits and to correct the results of the study, it should be deemed that it has the authority not to recognize the credits if it was known in advance.

The Ministry of Education issued a disposition to conduct a special audit of the case to revoke the credits granted to K in accordance with the relevant regulations in the course of study taken by the defendant, etc. with respect to the matters which unfairly granted credits to K.

Article 44 of the FG Regulations provides that "If a professor in charge of the curriculum intends to correct the results after submitting them to the school team at the end of the semester, he/she may cancel the credits", and Article 26 subparagraph 7 of the FG Regulations provides that "If a professor in charge of the curriculum intends to correct the results after submitting them to the school team, he/she shall submit them to the school team within 20 days from the due date for submitting them." Article 7 (3) of the FG Regulations provides that "A professor in charge of the curriculum shall examine the ground for calculating the results immediately upon receipt of an objection, and shall examine the ground for calculating the results of his/her clerical error (an error, error of entry, data entry, error, calculation, mistake, name marking, or other administrative error)." Article 36 of the school regulations provides that "If a professor in charge of the curriculum intends to correct the results after submitting them to the school team at the end of the semester, he/she shall not be deemed to have made a direct correction of the credits within the fixed period of time."

F. On December 6, 2016, upon request of the Ministry of Education to send the results of special inspections of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Education corrected both the results of the first semester 1, 2015, the first semester 6 and the last semester 2, 2016, and the second class of the seasonal semester 2 to F or U.K. on December 9, 2016. The Ministry of Education issued an educational warning to K on December 29, 2016. Even if it is not mentioned in school regulations on the subject of cancellation of credits, it is difficult to view that the school affairs team’s education division’s revocation of credits takes charge of its duties, and that the school affairs division’s revocation of credits is not possible without verification by the professor’s improper act, and that the school affairs division’s revocation of credits is not in accord with the above notification of the Minister of Education’s corrective order under the premise that the school affairs division’s revocation of credits is not possible.

3) Whether it interferes with the school administration affairs

The lower court determined as stated in its reasoning, based on the following: (a) the person in charge of the school affairs team of the Defendant’s deceptive act did not recognize the fact that K should have actually obtained the results of the instant subject without recognizing the fact that K has actually received the results of the instant subject; (b) K applied for the course of the instant subject in a semester 1, 2016, and was given three credits upon having received the results of passing the study by showing the degree of academic achievement meeting the evaluation elements prepared by the Defendant, who is the professor in charge; (c) the school affairs team of the principal affairs of the principal affairs of the principal affairs of the principal affairs of the Republic of Korea established the academic achievement register with the contents that K has obtained three credits from the subject of the instant subject; and (d) the Defendant could not obtain three credits under the premise that K should have duly completed the said subject in the instant subject in the instant course, and the Defendant could not obtain three credits on the premise that the aforementioned results could not have been interfered with the Defendant’s school affairs management due to the unlawful act of the principal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, since the school administration duties of the principal of the school administration, such as preparation of school register, sexual management, school statistics, and academic certification, by fraudulent means by the defendant, who is the professor in charge, have reached the degree of the occurrence of the risk of interference, beyond the mere occurrence of the risk of interference, and thus, the decision of the court below that recognized the obstruction of business as legitimate and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the obstruction of business.

B. The point of the teacher who counterfeited the private document and the teacher who displayed the private document

1) Whether it constitutes a private document concerning a certificate of fact

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined as follows: (a) following the legal reasoning of private document on the certificate of fact: (b) the answer sheet of this case shows that the applicant has been present in the form of a document continuously because the applicant K appears in the name as the applicant in the reply sheet of this case; (b) the answer sheet of this case proves that the applicant was present in and applied for the oral examination of ladra; and (c) the applicant stated the awareness and judgment that the applicant is a correct answer; (d) the defendant gives a certain score to the applicant through the degree of the applicant's participation in the study; (e) the degree of the achievement of the goal; and (e) the objective material showing the academic achievement; and (e) the defendant gives a certain score to the applicant; and (e) the defendant can determine whether the subject document of this case is available after the record was given; and (e) the evidence is kept as evidence for the specified period after the record was given; and (e) it is sufficient that the applicant in this case's answer sheet of this case constitutes a social life document including a certificate of fact related to the applicant.

B) The judgment of this Court

According to the FG regulations on sexual treatment, the competent professor shall keep the sexual calculation data (finds/hes/shes, answers, various subjects, etc.) for one year (Article 8); and the faculty in charge of subjects shall examine the ground for sexual calculation immediately upon receipt of an objection, and may directly enter them into the school team within a fixed period, only where it is deemed that the clerical error is recognized. Article 36(1) of the Regulations provides that when the faculty in charge of subjects intends to correct the results after submitting the school team at the end of a semester, he/she shall submit a correction of the results to the school team within 20 days from the last day of each semester. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of these regulations and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court’s determination that the instant answer document constitutes a private document that proves that the Defendant applied for the examination, grant of the results, etc. is not erroneous in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2989, Sept. 29, 298, etc.).

2) Whether K's request or implied acceptance was made or not.

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, stated the legal principles regarding the explicit or implied consent or constructive consent in the crime of forging private documents, and determined that K cannot be deemed to have explicitly requested or implicitly consented to the preparation of the answer sheet in this case.

In addition, the lower court determined that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s act of forging this case’s answer to K even if it was based on the Defendant’s assertion at the time when the final sexual evaluation was completed and so-called “F preferential treatment” began to take social attention on October 2016, the Defendant has instigated to forge the answer site in order to prepare for the pertinent audit and to exercise false evidence according to the purpose of evading the responsibility for disciplinary action, and that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s act of forging this case’s answer site would have aggravated public opinion on the public opinion on the overall society as well as within the Fology, even if it was difficult for K to see that the Defendant continued to stay overseas as expressed by the Defendant’s own, and that it was difficult to conclude that it was difficult for the Defendant to participate in this case’s entrance and consent for a considerable period of 0 days due to the circumstance that it was difficult for the Defendant to easily take an overseas test as well as the Defendant’s answer to false evidence at the time of departure.

B) The judgment of this Court

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; ① even based on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not give positive answers on the job when visiting I and K on April 2016, upon request of M; ③ upon request of M, M was transferred to M [the Defendant’s consent and implementation of the bachelor’s special benefits. As such, the Defendant did not consent to the preparation of the answer sheet at the time of visit between I and K as well as implied, and ② the act of forging the answer sheet is not necessarily accompanied by the act of giving false credits; ② the actual Defendant granted false credits without preparing the answer sheet on June 2016, and entered the results of Q (Evidence evidence record 2241,99No9279); ③ The Defendant’s act of forging in the name of K cannot be presumed to have consented to the presumption of the forgery of the instant proposal itself by 298 on the ground that it did not necessarily mean that the Defendant’s aforementioned act of forging or altering the legal principles.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The point of the misunderstanding of evidence and the misunderstanding of forged evidence

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below, as stated in its reasoning, explained legal principles on the crime of forging evidence and disciplinary cases of other persons, and determined that: ① the act of sexual admission and the submission of output related to the crime of interference with business against the accused is almost practically implemented; ② theO and P refused to attend all the special lectures and terminal tests with the Orra at the time when the final evaluation was commenced and the results were entered into Q; ② the HE file which was made as the ground for sexual misconduct is the blank space, and it was well known that there was no ground to grant the results in such a criminal case as it was hard to find out that the points of the OE file as the ground for the OEM were in the blank space, and thus, it was hard to view that the defendant did not have any reasonable ground to grant the results in the criminal case, as well as the points of the evaluation of the subjects of this case, including those of this case as stated in the lecture plan, and that there was no possibility that the defendant would have been forged or falsified, as well as that of the defendant's criminal case, and that there was no possibility that the defendant's education or disciplinary cases as well known of the defendant.

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

① On October 4, 2016, the Ministry of Education: (a) requested the president of FF Group to submit data verifying and verifying facts regarding student selection and academic affairs management (Evidence Records 10: 10509-105, 105). On October 5, 2016, the head of the school administration team “the Defendant requested data to K in connection with national crypt”; (b) the attendance status of the subject of the instant case and the basis thereof (such as recognized materials for attendance); (c) the present status of the attendance of the subject of the instant case; (d) the date of giving results; (d) the date of examination; (e) the date of the instant request for the submission of e-mail from the 10th president; and (e-mail delivery to the Defendant on the same date; (e-mail delivery date; (e) the date of 10th of e-mail delivery; and (e-mail delivery date; (e-mail delivery date; (e) the Defendant received 10th of the instant e-mail on the same date.16.

② The Defendant directed 0 and P to forge the answer sheet in the instant case in K name and to prepare a false sexual file and sphophy-test attendance book.8) In order to forge the answer sheet, the Defendant directly received the answer sheet from the Administrative Office of the New Industry Convergence University (Evidence Record No. 4, 3067, 3074 pages).

③ P. On October 18, 2016, the Defendant submitted 1 copy of the answer note 1 to T. 18. 2, 10, 10, 1034, 10361 page). P under the Defendant’s instruction, sent 10, 10, 10, 10, 50, 30, 10, 50, 30, 10, 10, 30, 10, 10, 30, 50, 30, 106, 30, 40, 50, 106, 30, 50, 10, 106, 30, 106, 30,000, 10,000, 30,000,000, 10,000,000,000,00 15,00,000.

B) Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act provides that "a person who destroys, conceals, forges, or alters any evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case against another person, or uses any forged or altered evidence in connection with another person's disciplinary case." Since a crime such as destruction of evidence is the legal interest of the State's criminal justice action or disciplinary action like perjury, "Disciplinary action" as referred to in the above provision of the Act is limited to a national disciplinary case and does not include a disciplinary case among private persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4191, Nov. 30, 2007).

According to the above facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Ministry of Education has audited a special case on the F, has taken the audit results such as a request for a minor disciplinary action against the defendant, and accordingly, the FJ disciplinary proceedings are underway against the defendant. However, the FJ's disciplinary action does not constitute a national disciplinary case as a disciplinary case between private persons, and the Ministry of Education can only request a disciplinary action against the defendant, and the Ministry of Education's special case audit by the Ministry of Education is not a disciplinary procedure against the defendant. The defendant's act of forging the evidence of this case by ordering P and submitting it to the FJ and FF new industry convergence administrative office does not constitute a case where the evidence of this case is forged or forged. The judgment of the court below is justified.

C) Whether to forge evidence concerning another person's criminal case or to aid the use of forged evidence

(1) Whether a person aids or aids another person to forge evidence concerning another person's criminal case

(A) Even before the commencement of the investigation procedure on the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means at the time of forging the instant evidence by ordering the Defendant 0 and P, it can be deemed that the evidence regarding the crime of interference with business was forged, since the investigation was initiated in the future, and thus, it could be a criminal case.

(B) However, even if the professor defendant is in superior position to 0 and P, it is difficult to view that P did not have any free will to refuse the defendant's unfair instructions on the recognition of attendance and the grant of sexual performance. 0, P did not have any intention to refuse the defendant's unfair instructions, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's act of forging the evidence of this case can not be viewed as mere tool or loss in relation to the defendant's relationship, and it is difficult to view that P did not constitute a crime of forging another's criminal case even if the act of forging the evidence of this case results in forging the evidence of his criminal case, and it is difficult to view that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the charge of forging another's criminal case or forging another's criminal case, in response to the defendant's close communication with the defendant's instructions.

(2) Whether to aid the use of forged evidence for another person's criminal case

As above, insofar as it cannot be deemed that the evidence regarding another person's criminal case was forged, it cannot be deemed that the forged evidence was used on such premise.

In addition, the "use of forged or altered evidence" refers to the provision of forged or altered evidence to a court, an investigation agency, or a disciplinary agency as a genuine evidence. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant ordered P to the request of the F.O., etc. of the Ministry of Education, and submitted the answer sheet and sexual X-cell file of this case, which are the evidence of this case, to the Ministry of Education through F. It cannot be deemed that the defendant submitted it to the investigation agency. Thus, the defendant does not constitute "use of forged evidence in relation to a criminal case."

The court below's decision that the crime of forging evidence or aiding and abetting the use of forged evidence concerning a criminal case is justified as a result, and it is difficult to see that there was a mistake of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the use of forged evidence in the crime of

B. The point of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below, as stated in its reasoning, stated the legal principles as to deceptive schemes and interference with the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means, and ordered 00 and 00 P to make a false statement to 'not known' as to the preparation process of the answer sheet of this case and the presence of K, and the defendant's act of making a false statement by himself, but the defendant's act of submitting the false evidence of this case to the special auditor of the Ministry of Education, such as U through the Fluxal Office, constitutes a deceptive scheme that causes mistake, mistake, or land to the auditor in order to achieve the purpose of the defendant.

Furthermore, the court below also held that ① the audit of special matters in the Ministry of Education under the relevant laws and regulations can be deemed as a high level audit that is close to the investigation of the case subject to audit, ② the Ministry of Education has published a thorough audit of the F in the Republic of Korea and domestic and overseas, and ② the Ministry of Education has received a large social attention of K preferential suspicion at the time.

This was that the Minister of Education denied relevant suspicions related to the exemption or mitigation of liability or considerably high possibility of operation, such as ex post facto material based on sexual records. ③ The auditor did not have any awareness of corruption related to K’s preferential treatment in school affairs management as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, although it appears that there was an agent examination by K without clarifying the part of the Defendant’s right to reply by aiding and abetting and making the Defendant appear to have been involved in the above agency examination, the main conclusion that the Defendant participated in the above agency examination was not changed. ④ The Minister of Education, upon determining that the Defendant participated in the above agency examination, requested an investigation of the Defendant, I, and K3 persons involved in the instant subject matter, and there was only some difference between the Defendant’s request for investigation and the accusation to the extent that it is difficult to prove that the Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that the Defendant did not have been present at the prosecutor’s office's preferential treatment in view of the fact that it was difficult to determine that there was a specific probability of the Defendant's participation in the audit and inspection.

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Whether a deceptive scheme is a deceptive scheme

In addition to the circumstances and legal principles stated by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15986, Feb. 10, 201), considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant merely did not make any false fact to an auditor of the Ministry of Education or instruct a witness to conceal truth, or conceal evidence unfavorable to him/her, but actively forged the answer sheet in the name of K, fabricated sexual X-ray files and Malaysia-in-clific book, and submitted such evidence to the Auditor of the Ministry of Education through F. 10, the Defendant’s act constitutes a deceptive scheme using land for the Ministry of Education’s mistake, 10, and site. The lower court’s determination is just and acceptable (the Defendant’s act of making the Defendant’s false statement, or the Defendant’s testimony that is well known to P. 10, 200, and 10,000,000). The Defendant’s act of submitting new evidence to the Ministry of Education’s office’s instructions or fraudulent evidence.

② On November 10, 2016, during the period of the Ministry of Education’s audit on special matters, the Defendant applied for the horse examination without having applied for the horse examination by K, and made a false statement as if he/she submitted the answer sheet of this case (Evidence 3: 1159-1160 pages), and the assistant assistant 0 who was instructed by the Defendant to the effect that P was well aware of the answer sheet of this case, false attendance, domestic lecture, etc. in the course of an interview with U, and that a separate answer was not prepared (Evidence 4: 3076-307, 3216 pages).

③ The Inspector General of the Ministry of Education confirmed the entry into and departure from K, the writing of K’s high school, and the access records, such as IP related to online taking, and revealed that he/she participated in the online course of the instant subject by any person other than K, who is different from the end-to-end examination site of K, and that he/she participated in the online course of the instant subject (Evidence Record 3: 151, 1156 page). On November 10, 2016, the Prosecutor of the Ministry of Education asked the Defendant on November 10, 2016, but the Defendant made a false statement as if he/she submitted the instant answer sheet on behalf of another person.

④ The Inspector General of the Ministry of Education did not discover ‘the fact that the evidence of this case, which the defendant forged, was submitted as an explanatory material,' and he was found to have been applied for the horse examination on behalf of a person other than K. The Ministry of Education, on November 18, 2016, issued the audit results on November 24, 2016, to ascertain the fact that "in fact that K did not apply for the horse examination, there was a suspicion of proxy examination, such as submission of an answer sheet in its name," and to request the investigation of the defendant. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office of Seoul issued the audit results on November 24, 2016 on the ground that "the defendant neglected to confirm the identity of the applicant, etc., and there was a suspicion of proxy examination as a result of neglecting supervision over the senior director of the examination (the evidence record No. 624, No. 17099).

⑤ Although the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office was punished by the investigation, including the investigation, search, and seizure of related persons, and the request for communication confirmation data, the fact of manipulation of the instant evidence was not revealed (Evidence No. 1157-1158, 1408-1426). The fact of manipulation of the instant evidence was revealed according to the prosecutor’s investigation conducted by the said special prosecutor, and the statement of reversal of P (Catch No. 4 right 3066-307 pages).

B) Whether obstruction of performance of official duties is obstruction

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's fraudulent act interfered with the execution of duties of specific and realistic audit by the Auditor of the Ministry of Education. The court below determined otherwise by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to interference with the obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means, and the prosecutor's assertion

① The Ministry of Education announced the result of the special audit on November 18, 2016, and announced that K did not apply for the last examination, but did not apply for the last examination, and made it clear that there was a suspicion of proxy examination, such as submission of an answer to the applicant’s name, and requested FO to investigate the defendant, and requested FO to take a minor disciplinary measure against the defendant (Evidence Record 1:62-625, 3: 982-984); the Ministry of Education on November 24, 2016, Defendant I, I, and three K three to request the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office to investigate the suspicion of interference with business, such as the "Representative Examination for the subject of the instant case" and the "Defendant", one of the above suspicion, has been in custody on June 11, 2016 at the last 1, and did not verify the applicant’s status and supervision on the date of the examination, and the Ministry of Education can keep the examination record in its name 10-10 on the date of the examination.

(2) According to the Audit Regulations of the Ministry of Education, the Minister of Education may request a disciplinary action or reprimand against the public officials, executive officers, and employees of an institution subject to audit or inspection or a department subject to audit according to the audit results, and the request for disciplinary action against the teachers of a private school shall be made by classifying the kind of disciplinary action or minor disciplinary action (Article 19(2) and (3)). In addition, where the audit results deem that there is a suspicion of a crime, the Minister of Education shall file a criminal charge, request an investigation if the probability of the crime is deemed to exist (Article 19(2)8, 9, and (4)), request an investigation to investigate matters is excessive, and through the public prosecutor’s stamp, the investigation is conducted, but the accusation is conducted immediately, and there is a difference between the defendant and the suspect’s position (Article 258 of the Criminal Procedure Act), whether an appeal is filed (Article 10 of the Prosecutor’s Office) and the judgment on whether an accusation is guilty (Article 70 of the Prosecutor’s Rules).

③ The Prosecutor General of the Ministry of Education, due to the Defendant’s act of manipulating the instant evidence, such as the answer sheet, etc., for which K did not take the crypt examination, led to mistake as to all different facts that K did not take the crypt examination. If the Defendant did not submit the instant evidence, the Ministry of Education, as a result of the audit, shall grasp the facts that K did not take the crypt examination, and shall evaluate the Defendant’s failure to take the crypt examination, and shall take measures of heavy disciplinary action against the Defendant, who did not request the investigation.

The Ministry of Education may not exclude the possibility that it has been required. The Ministry of Education may conduct an additional audit and take other administrative measures, such as correction, improvement, recommendation, etc. of the FF and related persons, in addition to the request for investigation or accusation, according to the result thereof.

The Inspector General of the Ministry of Education stated that the defendant was not aware that he had a assistant assistant and forged the answer sheet of this case, that he was aware of this fact at the time, followed more strict audit, and that he was guilty of the defendant's suspicion, and that he did not request an investigation (Evidence Nos. 4 and 3216-3217 of the evidence record).

④ The Inspector General of the Ministry of Education confirms the existence of K's domestic stay in the Republic of Korea, the completion of the answer sheet of this case, and the details of IP access. Therefore, he/she may be deemed to have conducted a faithful audit. Despite the faithful audit by the Auditor of the Ministry of Education, an auditor of the Ministry of Education may be deemed to have conducted a faithful audit. Notwithstanding the audit by the Auditor of the Ministry of Education, he/she may be deemed to have caused a situation that the defendant's act is likely to impede or impede the duties of the Ministry

⑤ The submission of the evidence by the defendant to the Ministry of Education for the verification of the facts of the Ministry of Education and the specific case audits by the Ministry of Education, beyond the scope of acceptable by social norms in exercising his/her right to defense, and the degree of illegality is significant and severe.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is partially well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is again rendered after

【Re-written Judgment】

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense acknowledged by this court and the gist of the evidence is as follows: (a) adding Paragraph (4) to the facts constituting an offense as stated below; and (b) except for the addition of the following additional evidence in summary 2017Kahap49, a summary of the evidence, it is identical to the corresponding column of the lower judgment; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of

Part added to the Facts of the offence)

4. Performance of official duties by deceptive means.

Around November 2016, the Defendant submitted to F. F. F. F. to the auditor in charge of special matters in the Ministry of Education, such as U, etc. who is aware of the forgery, etc. through F.M.’s oral test and answers, sexual X-cell files, and off-line weather examinations, which were forged as prescribed in paragraph (2) above, and caused K to make a false statement as if he/she took a substitute test in his/her own subject and gave K credits after gathering such facts, etc.; further, on November 11, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to F. P. P. P. so that he/she does not know that he/she did not attend the above final test and answer questions; thereby, the Defendant did not have a person in charge of special audit and inspection of U.S. special evidence to prevent the Defendant from interfering with U.S.’s performance of his/her duties by means of a fraudulent means, etc.

“2017, 49

1. Some of the written questions and answers to the defendant;

1. Investigation report (including report data on the result of audit conducted by the Ministry of Education related to the K preferential treatment treatment); 1. Investigation report (related to the suspicion of agency test conducted by K in the announcement of the result of audit conducted by the Ministry of Education);

1. Records of “K-OC lectures”;

1. Data pertaining to filing a criminal charge as a result of the audit of a special case at a F University and requesting an investigation (including seven copies of a criminal charge and requesting an investigation, three copies of a request for investigation);

1. School affairs system and materials to be submitted by the Ministry of Education;

1. Provisions, such as official text, school regulations, organization, etc., concerning the submission of processing results following the notification of the results of inspection on the actual status of the academic affairs of the Yong-Namnam University;

1. An abstract of the official text, school regulations, organization, etc. submitted following the notification of the results of the inspection on the actual status of the academic affairs of an athletic specialist at the university of single country;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as official text, school regulations, organization, etc., to the documents submitted following the notification of the results of the inspection of actual status of academic affairs by athletic personnel of the Joseon University;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 314(1) and 313 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 231 and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of a teacher in charge of forging private document, the choice of imprisonment), Article 234 of the Criminal Act, Articles 231 and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of a teacher in charge of uttering of private document, the choice of imprisonment), Article 137 of the Criminal Act, Article 137 of the former Act, Article 12(1) of the former Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly (wholly amended by Act No. 14757, Mar. 21, 2017); Article 12(1) of the former Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly (wholly amended by Act No.

The former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the most severe crime of interference with business)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

From one month to seven years of imprisonment; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: An offense of forging a private document;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Document) (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Document) (Special Convicts) for the person under command (Aggravated Elements)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 1 year to 3 years of imprisonment

* In relation to the crime of uttering of an investigation document, if a person who forged a private document uses a forged document, he/she shall not be treated as a majority crime, but shall be treated as a sentencing factor only.

(b) Concurrent crimes: Obstruction of the performance of official duties;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 8th to 1th 6th : Interference with Business

[Determination of Types] 1 (Interference with Business) interference;

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and 6 months;

(d) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes;

A crime of violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, for which the sentencing criteria are not set, shall be based on the lower limit of the scope of sentence according to the sentencing criteria, since the crime of violation of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal, etc. at the National Assembly, for which the sentencing criteria

3. Determination of sentence;

Although the Defendant is a university professor who is required to be the Flux of the society as well as graduates, and is responsible for the promotion of academic affairs and justice, the Defendant decided to allow him/her to attend a school and make a false evaluation of his/her achievements from the beginning of a semester, and thereby impairing the fairness and adequacy of the Flux academic management by entering relevant information, such as false grades, into the Flux academic information system, and submitting relevant data to the school. Furthermore, there is a serious concern that the Defendant’s criminal act of this case would result in the collapse of the Fluxal and fair evaluation procedure and system, and that it would be difficult for him/her to take advantage of other external factors than the students’ real ability, and that it would be difficult for him/her to receive fair evaluation of his/her outcomes, such as giving rise to considerable attention to academic heat and employment accidents, and that it would be difficult for the Defendant to take advantage of his/her own social norms and system, and that it would be difficult for him/her to receive fair evaluation of his/her membership in the university.

However, the Defendant made a confession on behalf of the Defendant for his criminal conduct from 00 to 100, and expressed his/her view that he/she would not have been able to commit the instant crime by using his/her own political activity for a long period of 0 years, and that he/she would have been able to commit the instant crime with his/her own political activity by taking into account the circumstances that the Defendant would not have any significant impact on the part of the Defendant’s academic activities, including the so-called “devaluative evaluation,” and that he/she would not have been able to take advantage of his/her own academic activities, including the fact that the Defendant would not have been able to take advantage of his/her own academic activities, and that he/she would have been able to take advantage of the circumstances that the Defendant would not have been able to take advantage of his/her own academic activities, including the fact that he/she had been able to take advantage of his/her past academic activities, and that the Defendant would not have been able to take advantage of his/her academic activities, such as an ex officio.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

A. The point of forging evidence

around October 2016, the Defendant: (a) around Fast Fast, K’s Fast’s participation in sports games and school affairs management preferential treatment; (b) the prosecution is under investigation; and (c) the Fast educational foundation special for the aforementioned suspicion.

After the audit committee's self-audit (the audit period from October 24, 2016 to December 1, 2016) and special matters of the Ministry of Education (the audit period from November 15, 2016 to the audit period) were planned to take disciplinary action and file a complaint with the criminal investigation agency against the defendant, etc. through the audit of special matters of the Ministry of Education (the audit period from November 2016 to from November 15, 2016), the defendant's teaching assistant 0, and the defendant's teaching assistant to conceal the fact that he unlawfully granted credits to the K, as if he/she concealed the fact that he/she conducted the N's 'N' 's 's 'N' 's 's 's ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' '

In this context, P around that time, under the direction of the defendant at F. F. P. P. revised the above part of the attendance at K. P. P. P. P. as if the defendant appeared in the F. P. P. P. P. by making one copy of the oral test answer sheet stating 'N', 'sports science', 'sports science', 'R in the university column, 'K', 'K in the name column', 'K in the name column, and 'K', 'V', 'V', etc., and 'V', 'V', 'V', in the appearance of the E. F. P. P. P. In addition, the defendant ordered P to prepare 0, 00, 1 copy of the oral test sheet in the name of K, evidence of criminal or disciplinary cases, and 'V', 1 copy of the sexual X-ray file', and 'V', Mara, Mara, to make a false evidence to be forged by making a false part of the attendance.

(b) The point of a forged evidence user teacher;

around October 2016, the Defendant: (a) at F Company, K’s F. K K’s entrance to a school laboratory and school affairs management preference; (b) under investigation by the prosecution; (c) was scheduled to take disciplinary action and accusation procedures against the Defendant through an audit by the F. F. itself and an audit by the Ministry of Education; (d) was contacted with the purport that the Defendant requires K-related sexual calculation data and attendance approval data at the school foundation S and the Ministry of Education; and (e) was different from submission of relevant data; (e) the Defendant’s e-mail files were forged to the Defendant’s teaching assistants for the purpose of submitting as evidence of a criminal case or disciplinary case; and (e) the Defendant requested the Defendant to submit a forged or falsified test file to the public office of F.M. 1 copy and the public office of F. P.M. 1 copy of the results that the Defendant knew to the public office of F.M. 18th of that month and the public office of F.M. Industrial Convergence to submit them as evidence of forgery or disciplinary case of the Defendant’s e-mail.

2. Determination

As examined in Article 3-A-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the above facts charged do not constitute a crime, and thus, the innocence shall be pronounced pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as each of the above crimes (Evidence 3

The presiding judge, judge and assistant administrator;

Judges Min Il-young

Judges Hong Man-man

1) The Defendant does not dispute the violation of the Act on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly.

2) The Defendant does not dispute a public recruitment relationship with M, I, or K.

3) The subject scores are composed of 50 online points and 50 offline points (15 points in attendance at the special courses and 35 points in the final examination).

More than 70 points in total shall be treated as Plass. Online points shall be the following:

At the time of the completion of the weather examination, the defendant sent X-cell files containing online points to the defendant.

0 According to the 0th alcohol, students may receive at least 60 points for completing online courses at least 50 points, which shall be subject to K-OC points, which shall be subject to K.

K-MOC scores were written as 60 points without verifying online points because it is impossible to identify ID and e-mail (Evidence No. 4 tickets)

3940-3941)

4) According to Article 59 of the FJ Regulations, the president violates school regulations upon the proposal of the Central Guidance Committee or the University Guidance Committee, following deliberation by the Council of School Affairs.

Any student who has violated the principal portion of the student may be disciplined, and the disciplinary action shall be classified into reprimand, probation, abandonment, inorganic purification, and expulsion.

5) Article 60 (Order, etc. for Correction or Modification) of the Higher Education Act

(1) With respect to facilities, equipment, classes, school affairs and other matters, the Minister of Education shall require schools to provide education-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or orders or school regulations thereunder.

If it is contrary, the founder, operator, or head of a school may order him to correct or change it within a specified period.

(2) Where a person in receipt of an order for correction or modification under paragraph (1) fails to comply therewith within the designated period without justifiable grounds.

The cancellation or suspension of violations or the reduction of the fixed number of students, the closure of a department or the mother of students in the school, as prescribed by Presidential Decree

Any measure, such as suspension of collection, may be taken.

(3) The Minister of Education shall, where it is evident that a violation cannot be corrected or changed due to its nature, such as the termination of the violation, etc.

Measures under paragraph (2) may be taken without issuing an order for correction or modification.

6) In the case of South Korea, Article 38 of the school regulations shall be revoked if it has been proved that the credits recognized as a result of an unlawful act even if they were approved as a single credits.

Article 8 of the Organizational Regulation provides that a class credits team shall be established in the school administration, and the attached Table of Article 3 of the Work Division Regulation shall be the school administration team.

As part of the funeral service, the content of the semester performance, the academic and academic records management, the sexual management, etc. is included in the school register of the school office.

On August 28, 2017, after obtaining approval from the Minister of Education, the Minister of Education submitted the results of treatment, such as the cancellation of credits for the relevant student, and the treatment of qualifications.

In the case of a national university, the proviso to Article 36 of the School Regulations shall be deemed to have been determined by strike or fraudulent act even if the credits for which such credits have not been recognized.

Article 9-5 of the Organizational Regulation provides that a school team shall be established in the Death Campus and the astronomical Campus Station, and duties shall be revoked.

Article 16 of the Regulations on Division provides that the school affairs team shall take charge of the management of school affairs and the management of school records, and the school affairs team of the school affairs shall take charge of the school affairs on August 22, 2017.

The Minister's revocation and treatment of the relevant student and the imposition of an academic warning shall be conducted with the approval of the Minister, and on August 23, 2017, the Minister of Education and the President's approval shall be obtained.

The Ministry of Education submitted the results of treatment, such as the handling of the F credits of the relevant student.

In the case of Joseon University, Article 41(2) of the School Regulations provides that "it may be revoked if a recognized credit is due to an act of misconduct or negligence."

In addition, Article 7 (2) of the Regulations on the Organization shall have a school affairs management team in the school affairs office, and Article 4 of the Regulations on the division of duties and the division of duties and the delegation of duties shall be a school affairs.

The division of duties of the operating team includes sexual processing and management, preparation and management of the school register, etc., and the school affairs management team of the school affairs is the school affairs management team on August 2017.

25.As a result, with the approval of the Director General, take such measures as handling the credits of the student concerned and revoking the credits.

7) Although the lower court stated that the use of forged evidence is time of forgery or use, it is required that the use of forged evidence can be submitted to an investigation agency or disciplinary action agency.

As such, the expression is modified as above.

8) The records of the students are required to submit themselves and P as audit data by the Ministry of Education for the immediately preceding professor with the audit of the Ministry of Education.

Among the x-cell files arranged, points shall be written in the place where the part of K is unfolded, and there is no answer to K's oral examination, and only part of the answer shall be written and K.

I directed to prepare one of the answer points of P. P. P. P. to correct the final results X-cell file (the oral examination scores, etc.).

He sent to him and added individual activity information to the final x file, together with the answer letter in the name of K that he prepared.

2016, 10, 19. A statement to the effect that it was delivered to the Defendant (Evidence Nos. 4, 3067-3075, 3098-3102) and P also 0 statements.

B. (Evidence No. 10, 10344) was made (Evidence No. 10, 10344).

In addition, he did not keep the X-cell file from June 20, 2016. The Defendant did not have the X-cell file from June 20, 2016.

J. K’s special lecture and Madra’s final test scores, with 10 points Edra’s special lecture scores, and Edra’s Mad’s Mad’s Mad’s Mad’ Mad’s Mad’s Mad’

The highest point for completion is 10 points and the highest point is 70 points for completion, and the points are again put in accordance with the direction.

In addition, I stated that the points of June 20, 2016 and the points of October 19, 2016 were different (Evidence Record 4: 3945 pages).

9) From the end of September 2016 to the end of the Ministry of Education, U.S. who had worked in the Ministry of Education’s school affairs system when the suspicion of preference to K’s school affairs is raised in the press and inspection of state administration.

At the direction of the head of university policy office, he/she was a person in charge of affairs and participated in the general audit and inspection (Evidence Record 3:3267-3269).

10) On the basis of the result of the Ministry of Education’s audit that the school foundation S Special Audit Committee applied for the horse death by K as an offline, the Defendant applied for the application by proxy.

In fact, the fact that the fact was not discovered was requested to take a minor disciplinary measure differently from other related persons such as BP.

11) As seen earlier, the defendant made a false statement or made 0 and P make the statement that he well-known the process of preparing the answer sheet of this case.

Action is a deceptive scheme in combination with the above act of manipulation of evidence to the extent that it clearly reveals the active nature of the act submitted by manipulating the answer sheet, etc. of this case

Since the form of punishment can be used as the form of crime, it is not excluded from the crime.