The conviction part is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

An appeal by a prosecutor.

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing such act of disposal (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). The term “defacation” in fraud refers to causing mistake as to the facts that are the basis for determining the other party to take a disposal act. The term “dispositive act” refers to a disposal act that delivers property to the actor, etc. or gives pecuniary advantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do484, Apr. 27, 2001; 2015Do13024, Jan. 28, 2016). (b) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the crime of fraud, fraud, and attempted fraud is a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”), and the summary of the crime of fraud and attempted fraud, by inducing the Defendant to directly use the bid price or to obtain pecuniary advantage from the purchaser, etc., who did not know it as a successful bidder.

(c)

According to the judgment of the first instance and the reasoning of the judgment of the lower court and the evidence duly admitted, the content of the deception on the crime in the charge of the crime in question is unlawful, even if the R et al. actively enters into the foregoing system in relation to the final construction price and the lower limit of the successful bidder in the tendering procedure for various construction works conducted by the F through the Electronic Procurement System, which serve as the basis for the selection of successful bidder, and operated the foregoing system.