A. Although the defendant submitted tender documents after erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it was true that the defendant granted the above company a bid qualification, but even if the above company submitted documents at the time, it was selected as the construction company. Thus, the defendant's act does not cause danger of undermining the fairness of bidding, and thus, the obstruction of bidding is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

B. 1) The crime of interference with a tendering procedure is established when it harms the fairness of a tendering procedure by deceptive means, force, or other means. It is sufficient that the act detrimental to the fairness of a tendering procedure would be done, and it does not need to result in actual harm the fairness of a tendering procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do395, Feb. 23, 1993). (ii) The case was returned to the instant case and the case was examined. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant was granted a bid qualification to E, a stock company which submitted the bidding document at around 17:00 on the same day after December 10, 2012, which was determined by the notice of a tendering procedure, and the defendant was finally selected as a successful bidder, and thus, the crime of interference with the tendering procedure against the defendant is established. This is likewise true even if the defendant submitted the bidding document at the time of the above company as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is not accepted.

3. The defendant's history of judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing has been punished as a single crime.