채용비리 사건에서 위계에 의한 업무방해죄 적용관련 실무상쟁점 검토

Criminal Act Article 314 Clause 1 articulates the crime of business interference, a hazard offence. When practically applying this article, the accomplice is required to have sold knowledge that the applicant is under the passing line. In addition, the Supreme Court holds that when it founds conspiracy or understanding between the criminal and the another, to be committed by fraudulent means, there is no 'the another'. This leads to unacceptable illegality. This article starts from these two points. The 'fraudulent means' is satisfied when there is hazard of changing the result of review process about applicants. This does not only include any offense of test result make up, but also any wrongdoing favoring someone considering solicitation or background of the applying person. This approach helps to make it easy to prove intention of the solicitor or the accomplice. Also, the Supreme Court‘s ruling that conspiracy or understanding means that there is no another to be deceived may result in unfair applying of criminal law in that there can be another of fraudulent means such as inspector including staff in charge of hire. It should be noted that understanding is accepted when there is proof based on strict investigation. Finally, when there is conspiracy or understanding, related persons can be acquitted. This can result in unfairness. Thus, regardless of conspiracy or understanding, when any solicitation or background influenced the hiring process, it should be punished with new enactment.