All appeals filed against Defendants A and B by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s mistake of facts and obstruction of auction as stated in the judgment of the court below, there was no conspiracy with Co-defendant B. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B 1’s attempted fraud and obstruction of auction among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit on the ground that he received approximately KRW 1.177 million of the cost and completed the construction work of the instant golf practice range with N, a substantial operator of L, and received approximately KRW 1.1 billion of the cost and completed the construction work of the instant golf practice range. Defendant A or G corporation indirectly occupied the instant golf practice range through Defendant A or G corporation, and reported the right of retention that indirectly occupies the said construction cost as the preserved claim, and each of the above crimes is not established. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and two years of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) by the court below is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence of Defendant C (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

1) On June 8, 2012, with regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to Defendant A), it is reasonable to deem that the crime of obstruction of auction is established by submitting a false report on the right and an application for demand for distribution stating that the Defendant granted the lease deposit in operating the golf driving range in the instant case, even though there is no delivery of the lease deposit, thereby affecting the participation in auction and the formation of the auction price. In full view of all circumstances as to attempted fraud, the fact that the Defendant conspired with the Defendant B can be recognized. Nevertheless, the lower court that acquitted the Defendant of each of the facts charged was erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. (2) The lower court that acquitted the Defendant of each of the above facts charged was erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. (2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (for Defendant A: suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months; two years; Defendant B;