Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for four years, for two years and six months, for Defendant B, and for Defendant C.

A. A. The prosecutor prosecuted the Defendants against the use of computers, etc. and the obstruction of tendering. The lower court convicted the Defendants of the entire charges, and sentenced Defendant A to imprisonment with prison labor for four years, two years, three years, three years of suspended execution, three years of community service order, 160 hours, two years of suspended execution, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C, one year of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, 120 hours, one year of suspended execution, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant E, one year of suspended execution, two years of probation, two years of community service order, 120 hours, two years of probation, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant F, two years of suspended execution, three years of suspended execution, and two hours of community service order.

B. Accordingly, Defendant A appealed from each of the Defendants B, D, E, and F on the grounds of unfair sentencing on the grounds of mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed from all of the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

On June 16, 2014, the appeal procedure (Seoul Central District Court 2014No385) was pending in the appellate court of Seoul Central Court due to the appeal filed by both parties, which was transferred to the Seoul High Court.

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act are added to each of the ancillary crimes, while maintaining the existing facts charged as the primary charges of fraud by the use of computer, etc. in the trial prior to the remand, and Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes as the applicable provisions

The summary of the fraud part of the facts charged in the indictment was stated as the item "(preliminary facts charged)" and applied for the amendment of the indictment, which added the same purport as the item "(preliminary facts charged)", and the court prior to the transfer of the case to the court prior to the remand.

C. After the remand, the lower court reversed the lower judgment and found the Defendants guilty of interfering with the Defendants’ bidding.