The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

No. 1 through 16, 18 through 27, 30 of the seized evidence.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is established that the defendant received a contract for the supply of food materials for school meal services with a total of 20,100,927,502 won from 3,255 times in total to "electronic tendering for the supply of food materials for school meal services" and received disinfection certificates as if he did not control the disinfection of vehicles for the supply of food materials, and submitted them to the person in charge of managing "electronic tendering for the supply of food materials for school meal services" over 122 times in 122 times in the name of another food materials supplier and interfere with its business. The case is very significant in light of the content and frequency of the crime, the scale of the crime, etc., and the defendant committed an act of transferring an authorized certificate from six food materials supplier for the purpose of reflecting the "electronic tendering for the supply of food materials for school meal services" in the name of another food materials supplier. The defendant committed the crime of this case by creating a separate office after the third floor of the building of FF in order to avoid crackdown or inspection in relation to school meal services.

However, there is no material to deem that there was a significant defect in the food materials supplied by the defendant after being awarded a contract for the supply of food materials for school meal services through the crime of interference with bidding, and that the food materials supplier operated by the defendant still could not overcome the hostile situation.