The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The appeal’s act in collusion with other appraisal members, including the Defendants, to give false appraisal of high art and to prepare a written resolution for appraisal according to the direction of H president of the E Association with a summary of the grounds for appeal constitutes an act interfering with the business of the E Association, an incorporated association, the subject of separate

In addition, since the appraiser's appraisal resolution is issued by the working staff with the approval of the vice-chairperson after the written appraisal resolution of the appraiser, the appraisal certificate is issued by the appraiser as well as the vice-chairperson or the working staff.

Therefore, the act of preparing a false appraisal resolution by the appraisal committee members is at least to cause mistake, mistake, and site to the employees involved in the issuance of appraisal certificates thereafter.

Therefore, even though the Defendants’ act constitutes sufficient obstruction of business through fraudulent means, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendants of the instant charges.

2. The term “manner” in the crime of interference with the business through a deceptive scheme under Article 314(1) of the former Criminal Act means causing misunderstandings or sites to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the offender’s act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3839, Jun. 29, 2007; 2005Do6404, Dec. 27, 2007). Therefore, if an unlawful act was committed under the public invitation or understanding of all persons performing the duties, there was the other party causing misunderstanding, etc., due to such an act.

Therefore, such an act cannot be deemed as a deceptive scheme in the context of the obstruction of business through a deceptive scheme (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13217, Feb. 26, 2015). As stated in the lower judgment, the appraisal members, including the Defendants, conspired to prepare a false appraisal resolution according to the direction of H by the president of the Association, and accordingly, the appraisal certificate was issued, shall not be deemed as a fraudulent scheme (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13217, Feb. 26, 2015).