The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, a deceptive scheme means causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the actor’s act, and thereby making the other party mistake, mistake, and land use. If the other party commits a wrong act or disposition and such an act was committed against the other party or making it difficult to do so, the crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means is established.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) ordered a project to install a community welfare center for night landscape (hereinafter “instant project”); (b) decided to select a business entity with the highest score, including subjective assessment by seven examiners comprised of experts, and technical evaluation based on objective indexes; and (c) the selection of a subjective evaluation appraiser refers to the number assigned to 21 examiners, namely, the number of examiners; (d) the Defendant agreed to select seven, among the numbers assigned to 21 examiners, to select the most number of examiners; and (e) the Defendant, among four, selected the most number of examiners; and (e) the Defendant, in the process of subjective evaluation, proposed the selection number to ensure that four, including E, a public official in charge of the instant project, are not aware of the subjective evaluation; and (e) the Defendant, in so doing, proposed that the number of examiners selected to be the highest number of examiners; and (e) the selection number that the Defendant submitted to four, including E, may not be known to the public official in charge of the instant project.