The non-guilty portion against the Defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is as follows: “ED traffic signal, etc. of a stock company E (hereinafter “E”) fails to meet the qualification requirements for the recognition of excellent procurement products; and even if the above signal, etc. are to be supplied periodically through the Public Procurement Service after concluding a unit price contract for a third party with respect to the excellent procurement products, the above signal, etc. is to be supplied periodically through the Public Procurement Service, even if the above signal, etc. was not supplied periodically through the Public Procurement Service, the EED traffic signal, etc. at the time of the application for excellent procurement products, etc. was to meet the requirements for the recognition of excellent procurement products at around September 10, 2007, and the EED traffic signal, etc. at the time of application for excellent procurement products, etc. was to be supplied to the Public Procurement Service’s 200-day unit price contract for the third party at the time of application for excellent procurement products, and to be entered in the Public Procurement Service’s 2018.7.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below explains the LED traffic signals, etc., which have been arranged in the product specifications of the unit price contract for a third party that the defendants entered into with the Public Procurement Service, as the target product, and as stated in the above product specifications.