The judgment below

Among them, the conviction part against Defendant A and B is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief of Defendant A, which was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant A and B

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing such dispositive act (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). The term “defination” in fraud refers to causing mistake as to the facts that the other party would be the basis of judgment in carrying out a dispositive act. The term “dispositive act” refers to an act of disposal that delivers property to the actor, etc. or gives pecuniary advantage (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Do484, Apr. 27, 2001; 2011Do48, Feb. 27, 2014, etc.). (2) Of the instant facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant and the construction business operator did not know of the fact that he/she did not receive any money from the construction business operator, such as the Defendant and the construction business operator, who did not know of the fact that he/she attempted to take part in the construction contract (hereinafter referred to as “specific Economic Crimes Act”), and the intent of fraud is that the victim and the construction business operator did not receive any money from the victim under joint bid contract.

(c)

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and subsequently recognized.