"Delegated Authority to Assistant"… Fine Confirmed for Professor Manipulating University Transfer Admission Score Sheets

[Image source=Pixabay]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A professor who fabricated the attendance of absent interviewers during university transfer admission interviews, where three interviewers score candidates, and instructed a teaching assistant to arbitrarily grade, was fined by the Supreme Court.

On the 3rd, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Gitaek) confirmed the lower court's ruling imposing a fine of 15 million KRW on Professor A of H University in Busan, who was indicted on charges of forgery of official documents, use of forged official documents, and obstruction of public duties by deception.

From 2014 for over four years, A served multiple times as an interviewer for H University's transfer oral and interview exams. He was accused of instructing a teaching assistant, who was a staff member, to arbitrarily fill out and submit score sheets that falsely indicated that other interviewers who had left without grading or were absent had attended and scored the candidates.

The oral and interview exams were conducted by three professors, including the department head, who directly interviewed candidates by department, each recording average scores on score sheets which they signed and submitted. These scores accounted for 40 to 50% of the total transfer admission evaluation score, according to investigations.

The first trial recognized all charges and sentenced him to a fine of 10 million KRW. Mr. B argued in court that he was unaware that other interviewers had fabricated the score sheets, but this was not accepted. The fact that he, as the then department head, signed the interviewer chairperson section on the score sheets was a key basis for the judgment.

The second trial raised the fine to 15 million KRW, stating, "Although the guilt is by no means light, the defendant denies the crime or shifts responsibility to others, raising doubts about sincere remorse."

In the second trial, Mr. B also claimed, "The score sheets were prepared by the teaching assistant who was lawfully delegated authority, so they cannot be considered forged official documents." However, the court pointed out, "The score sheets must record the results of the interviewers 'directly' assigning scores for each evaluation item after assessing the candidates."

The Supreme Court also upheld this judgment. The court stated, "The lower court did not fail to conduct necessary hearings nor err in the legal interpretation regarding the purpose of using forged official documents, falsity, intent, and conspiracy," and dismissed Mr. B's appeal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.