The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) (misunderstanding of facts) Defendant A did not belong to a group that can be selected as an existing evaluation committee member upon Defendant B’s recommendation, but Defendant A was selected as an evaluation committee member by disregarding the existing customs, Defendant B participated in the tender with an expectation that he would be able to participate in the future project while participating in the information strategic plan (M) project, and Defendant A was appointed as an evaluation committee member upon the recommendation of Defendant B who participated in the tender, and it was sufficiently known that such evaluation committee member would interfere with the selection of an evaluation committee member by arbitrarily granting points to the evaluation committee member (hereinafter “J”) by giving points to the Defendants’ act, and that the designation of an evaluation committee member was interfered with the duties of selecting an appropriate evaluation committee member by misunderstanding N et al. who is the person in charge of the duties of J related to the Defendants’ act, and that the overall selection of the business operator was hindered.

Although the court below found the Defendants not guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. On the second day following the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio: “In collusion, the Defendants conspired to commit a deceptive scheme, and thereby, requested changes in the indictment with the content that “the Defendants conspired to commit a deceptive scheme or by force,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court upon permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the revised facts charged, this is examined below.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant A from February 2, 2009 to the same year

6. E. until the Staff.