The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing that misunderstanding the legal principles on the obstruction of bidding among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant submitted a written reply to the instant case for the confirmation of whether there was an administrative disposition, and the Defendant submitted it as a bidding document. However, the content of the written reply forged by the Defendant is not false, but is not false. According to the public notice of the instant tender, it is impossible to submit a written administrative disposition confirmation as of August 10, 2017, which is the final date for the tender, and to participate in the tender with the issuance of a written administrative disposition confirmation as of August 10, 201.

Therefore, the defendant submitted a forged letter as a tender document.

Even if there is no interference with bidding, it does not constitute a case.

B. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to interference with bidding among the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of interference with bidding under Article 315 of the Criminal Act does not require the actual appearance of unfairness as a dangerous crime established when the fairness of bidding is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or other means. Here, “act detrimental to the fairness of bidding” in this context means the occurrence of a situation that is likely to interfere with fair competition, i.e., giving rise to an unfair influence on the reasonable formation of price through fair competition, and includes not only the determination of price but also the act detrimental to “reasonable and fair competition” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8070, May 31, 2007; 2010Do1191, Jan. 27, 2011).