1. Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant A and B (including the part on innocence) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In relation to the evaluation of the proposal, there is no fact that Defendant B’s prosecutor’s statement and Defendant C’s statement were involved in the crime of interference with the performance of deceptive scheme, interference with the performance of official duties, forgery of private documents related to the purchase test and evaluation, use of the above investigation documents, interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive scheme, and interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive scheme, and there is no fact that Defendant A did not participate in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive scheme (misunderstanding of facts). In addition, the interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive scheme does not constitute a crime due to insufficient examination by public officials (misunderstanding of legal principles). (2) The interference with the performance of official duties by deceptive scheme does not constitute a crime (misunderstanding of legal principles) related to the alteration of the form of deceptive scheme, the alteration of private documents, and the use of the falsified document, and there is no relation between deception of fraud and the amount of fraud calculated by the lower court, even if established, the amount of pecuniary gains should be recognized as less than the amount of profits calculated by the lower judgment.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the interference with the performance of a deceptive scheme in relation to the evaluation of the proposal, according to the statement by the misunderstanding of the facts or the statement by the misunderstanding of the law on the performance of a deceptive scheme, it can be deemed that the error of the operation temperature test report was attached to the wrong report, and the changed Kamera and gales did not request a test for certification. Defendant B did not recognize the above situation at the time of submitting the second proposal, so there was no criminal intent to interfere with the performance of a deceptive scheme.

2) misunderstanding the legal principles on the forgery of private documents related to purchase, testing, and evaluation, the exercise of the above-mentioned document, and the obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means.