All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the obstruction of bidding (Defendant B1), the Defendant received a notice of tender announcement from C to the Z of Gwangju City X apartment complex (hereinafter “X apartment”), which was prepared in compliance with the Y qualification requirements, and delivered it to C at the time, and had it go through the bidding procedure in accordance with the above tender announcement notice. However, as a result of the council of occupants’ representatives, Y became unable to participate in the bidding on the wind that strengthens the qualification requirements, and Y did not participate in the part of the Defendant’s designation of AC as the operator of the above child care center, and therefore, the Defendant’s above act cannot be punished only for attempted bid interference.

(2) Even if C, aD, AE, and AJ did not actually intend to operate the above childcare center, it was intended to participate in the said bidding, and since bid procedures and the selection of operators with respect to the above childcare center were conducted fairly, it is difficult to deem that the crime of interference with bidding was established.

B) It is true that the Defendant received KRW 40 million from A as to the receipt of property in breach of trust. However, the selection of a child care center operator is not an entrusted management business entity of the apartment housing council, but an entrusted management business entity, and even if AB, the managing director, was actually involved in the selection of a child care center operating entity by assisting the council of occupants' representatives, the Defendant cannot participate in it. Thus, it is deemed that X apartment is an entrusted management entity of X apartment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing on the Defendant, who is the representative director, cannot be deemed to be a business operator of another person. (3) The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C: The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant B’s assertion