The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant on November 10, 2014 by his defense counsel are to be considered only to the extent that supplementation of the grounds of appeal submitted within the lawful period for submitting the grounds of appeal is made.) Since the parties to the “S homepage New Daily Business” as stated in the 5 attached Table No. 5 attached hereto are joint design applicable to a corporation, the facts charged under the premise that G was selected as a business operator are not guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.

피고인의 사실오인 주장에 관한 판단 이 부분 공소사실 2012. 10. 11. 피고인은 B과 공모하여 O 등 이미 제출된 견적서의 가격을 참조하여 G 명의로 최저가의 견적서를 작성하여 G이 사업자로 선정되도록 한 뒤 아르바이트생을 고용하여 위 사업을 실제 수행하는 등 위계로서 피해자 재단법인 한국형사정책연구원의 계약첼결 및 관리에 관한 업무를 방해하였다.

In full view of the evidence presented in the judgment below, the court below convicted the defendant as to this part of the facts charged.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is not sufficient to recognize this part of the charges that the Korea Criminal Policy Institute concluded a contract with the Design Distribution Co., Ltd. for “S homepage Newice” on October 11, 2012, and the Design Distribution Co., Ltd. completed the above service work on November 16, 2012, and received KRW 32,560,000 from the Korea Criminal Policy Institute, and all of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor were examined, thereby allowing G to be selected as a business operator, thereby interfering with the victim’s business as a deceptive scheme, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, it is true.