All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. As examined in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of business, and thereby acquitted the Defendants, even if the Defendants conspired to commit a crime interfering with business as described in the facts charged in the instant case, based on evidence.

Although D Co., Ltd. was changed before and after the date of the crime as stated in the facts charged in this case, it is omitted to indicate the company as the trade name at the time of the crime.

The indication of a stock company shall be omitted in the name of a corporation, such as K, K, L, and M, Co., Ltd.

B. F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant development project”) entered into a plan for development of a mobile base (mP) system used for G (hereinafter “instant project”) and participated in the instant project.

The Defendants attempted to make unjust enrichment of KRW 54 billion at the mass production stage by submitting a false estimate in which D’s supply price of an operational operator (MS) and connection control software (hereinafter “instant software”) used in K and L to the Agency for Defense Development through H.

Defendant

B Based on the e-mail reported to Defendant A on August 17, 2012, “F licensing response report” (Evidence No. 496 pages), “Examination Report related to License and Supply” (Evidence No. 523 pages), “E-mail (Evidence No. 3603, 3607 pages) dated September 7, 2012, and October 15, 2012, the Defendants’ meeting contents (Evidence No. 3621 pages) as of December 7, 2015 were integrated, and the Defendants made a cost pool by inserting an intermediate company to conceal this.

The Defendants stated that such act is difficult to verify from the standpoint of H and Agency for Defense Development, who are the other party, and that it is impossible to verify the cost submitted by the Defendant.