Defendant

A A Fines of 7,00,000 won, Defendant B of a fine of 1,00,000 won, and Defendant C of a fine of 1,00,000 won.

In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendants conspired to invite members to bid for the selection of the contractor and at the same time interfere with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) at the same time by providing entertainment and entertainment to the association members, and thus, found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The lower court, which found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, has erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendants conspired to commit the crime of interference with the business of the Defendants on the I redevelopment Partnership and did not use a deceptive scheme against the I redevelopment Partnership, and did not have an intent to use a deceptive scheme.

Defendant

The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the part of the offering of bribe was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, although there was no relevance to the auditor’s duty, while Defendant A merely provided the members with Busan Port to the end of the general meeting for the purpose of public relations, and there was no awareness that the travel expense equivalent to the travel expense was granted to the auditor AB.

The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment for August 2; the Defendant B: the fine of one million won; and the Defendant C: the fine of five hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

We examine the examination of whether the crime of interference with bidding and the crime of interference with business against the I redevelopment association is established, and the examination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendants' interference with bidding and the crime of interference with business against I redevelopment association.

. This part.