1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendants, the president of the D Taekwondo Association or the secretary general of the D Taekwondo Association, were engaged in the Taekwondo Competition jointly hosted by the D, D Living Sports Association, and D Taekwondo Association (hereinafter “the instant Taekwondo Competition”) in 2011 and 2012 as if they actually participated in the racing. As a result, the players constituting the D, D and D Taekwondo Association, which had not actually participated in the racing, did not actually participate in the competition and had them appear as if they actually participated in the competition. As a result, the players, who were composed of false players and D Taekwondo Association, had engaged in the business of fairly proceeding with the Taekwondo of the instant Taekwondo Association, D, D Living Sports Association and D Taekwondo Association.

2. As to this, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ act of preparing a false sloping ticket affected the appropriateness or fairness of the Taekwondo Games of this case, on the grounds that the results of the sloping team consisting of only the players who actually participated in the team were likely to differ from the results of the sloping team consisting of only the players who actually participated in the team.

It is reasonable to see that there was no suspicions as to the appropriateness or fairness of the instant Taekwondo contest during the period of the instant Taekwondo contest.

Even if the following facts were to be considered: (a) there was a serious doubt about the fair performance of the Taekwondo Games by reporting television broadcasts to the effect that “the senior athletes who closed the Taekwondo Games in this case were investigating the police,” and (b) thereby, the 2013 Taekwondo did not hold the Taekwondo Games; and (c) it was reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act of preparing the false senior athletes interfered with the progress of the Taekwondo Games in this case.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals.