All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the part of the charge of interfering with bidding by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles, there is no conspiracy or participation in the crime of interference with bidding as stated in this part of the charge.

In the process of bidding for the selection of a rearrangement project management company (hereinafter “instant bidding”), the term “payment of bid bond of KRW 300 million or submission of performance guarantee insurance policy of KRW 300 million,” which was presented as bidding conditions in the process of bidding for the selection of a rearrangement project management company in the Ulsan-gu Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “Redevelopment Project”) where the head of the partnership was the head of the partnership, is not excessive compared to the bidding conditions of other redevelopment projects, and the redevelopment project association of this case is much more relaxed than the bidding conditions set forth in the previous bidding process (the above bidding conditions are not set up for the purpose of blocking other enterprises, such as the above facts charged). The four companies including the LABA, etc. were participating in the on-site presentation held prior to the instant bidding, and the Defendant could not be aware that any of the bidding enterprises of this case was participating. Therefore, it is inconsistent with the logic that the Defendant’s participation in the actual bidding as described in the above facts charged does not make it impossible.

In addition, since the selection of a rearrangement project management company is decided by vote at the general meeting of the association members, the defendant did not have the right to select a specific enterprise as a rearrangement project management company.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant committed the crime of interference with bidding in collusion with K, etc. who is the actual manager of the KI, in collusion with the above facts charged.

In light of the above facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on bidding obstruction, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.