The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the grounds for appeal related to the failure of trial, the lower court, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, obtained property benefits by deceiving the damaged person in collusion with E, etc. as to the crime, harmed the fairness of bidding by deceptive means, and disseminated programs that could damage, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of the information and communications system, etc.

The decision is just, and there is no violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, such as violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal related to misapprehension of legal principles

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing such act of disposal (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). In fraud, the term “influoration” means that the other party misleads the other party to the facts that are the basis of judgment in carrying out a disposal act, and the term “dispositive act” refers to an act of disposal of property either granting property to the actor, etc. or giving pecuniary advantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do484, Apr. 27, 2001; 201Do48, Feb. 27, 2014). B. of the instant facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) and the intent of the fraudulent bidder’s bid is identified by the financial commissioner of the Defendant’s judgment based on the following circumstances: