All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for the public prosecutor’s appeal, fraud is established by deceiving another person to commit an act of disposal by inducing such act of disposal, thereby obtaining property or pecuniary benefit (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). The term “misunderstanding” in fraud means that the other party misleads the other party to the facts forming the basis of judgment in carrying out a disposal act, and the term “dispositive act” refers to an act of disposal of property by granting property or giving property benefits to the actor, etc. or by granting property benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do484, Apr. 27, 2001; 201Do48, Feb. 27, 2014). The summary of this part of the facts charged as added in the first instance judgment at the lower court is that the Defendants and the financial commissioner, in sequence, conspired with each other to give the aforementioned lower limit of the bid price to each of the above public corporation by obtaining an order for construction work price from the public treasurer and computer malicious program as indicated in the lower judgment.

The court below held that this part of the deception is a price determined in the procedure where the lower limit of the final successful bid is kept confidential, and that the bid price invested by the bidder is a voluntarily selected price without any unlawful act, and causes mistake as to whether the bidder has the intent and ability to perform the performance of the performance of the contract under the contract with the ordering agency, and the content and quality of the payment required under the contract, such as faithfully performing the construction work after concluding the contract with the ordering agency.