The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as the president of the Council of Residents of G Apartments (hereinafter “instant apartment”), had arbitrarily changed the points specified in the Standard Evaluation Table for Qualification System for the Selection of Business Entities, such as Construction Works and Services, etc. (hereinafter “Standard Evaluation Table”), which was publicly announced by the National Transport Authority, without obtaining the consent of the majority of the occupants, etc. in the bidding process for the selection of the instant apartment as the chairperson of the Council of Representatives of Residents of G Apartments (hereinafter “instant apartment”), but there was no perception that the Defendant would undermine the fairness of bidding since it was merely for the benefit of the instant apartment and did not aim at the selection or exclusion of a specific business entity as a successful bidder.

According to Article 55-4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, the selection of a guard station is the management entity's business, and the management entity conducts the evaluation in accordance with the evaluation table of this case. Thus, the defendant, who is the chairperson of the council of occupants of this case, is not in the position of subject in the process of selecting a guard station.

In addition, the four enterprises participating in the tender were assessed in accordance with the revised standard evaluation schedule.

There was no loss of the opportunity for fair competition, and there was no influence on the formation of reasonable prices.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Interference with the assertion of mistake of facts does not require the unfair outcome as a dangerous crime, and such an act includes not only the determination of the price but also the act detrimental to the lawful and fair competition method (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4940, Oct. 14, 2010, etc.). The lower court legitimately adopted and investigated in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.