The record reveals that the court below accepted the defendant's grounds for appeal on the sentencing and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and explained as the summary of evidence "Y's whole or part of the legal statement" that was not stated in the court of first instance or the court of original instance on the grounds of the judgment, and it erred by adopting as evidence the "written statement prepared by the police officer in charge of judicial police officers in relation to V" as to the part that the original person stated in the court of first instance to deny the establishment of substantial authenticity, although there is no admissibility of evidence.

However, the remaining evidence duly adopted by the court below can sufficiently recognize the obstruction of bidding due to the public invitation with B among the facts charged in the instant case and the obstruction of the execution of fraudulent service. Thus, the court below's error affected the judgment.

On the contrary, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of bidding, the degree of proof of facts charged, and the obstruction of the execution of official duties by deceptive means, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.