The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal can sufficiently be recognized that the part entered in the printed article prepared in this case constitutes false facts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor amended the indictment (in addition to the facts charged in the preliminary indictment), the applicable provision of the law is “Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act” and the facts charged below.

C. (1) An application for amendment to a bill of amendment was filed to the effect that the ancillary charge, the same as that mentioned in the Paragraph, was added, and this Court permitted the application and changed the subject of the judgment

However, the prosecutor's argument that the prosecutor's mistake of the facts charged prior to the amendment (which was changed from the trial to the primary facts charged) is still subject to the trial of this court, and this will be examined first and then examined the ancillary facts.

B. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts as to the primary facts charged . The defendant in the room of the public prosecutor's office was the 908 Dong Dong Dong-won's representative meeting of the above apartment occupant in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, 1210, and the victim D (the 50 years old) was the same apartment house 907 Dong-dong and 909 Dong-dong representative, who was the representative of the second tenant representative meeting of the apartment, and was the representative of the second tenant representative meeting of the apartment management company in relation to the selection of the entrusted manager of the apartment.

At the defendant's office around December 18, 2016, the defendant did not discuss in advance the victim's highest point to the representative and the specific company, and stated in the contract provisions on the possibility of re-tender in consideration of the defendant's objection, and subsequently decided to re-tender through a meeting. However, even though the defendant's decision to re-tender through a meeting was made on the paper A4, "the company is the first sub-party among the three major companies, the company is not awarded the contract."