All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The Defendants had not conspired to obstruct the process of selecting the F apartment complex controlled entity by way of a deceptive scheme and interfered with the designated entity's selection of the above apartment tenant representative meeting.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendants guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants were liable to commit the crime of interference with business and bidding as a joint principal offender.

① From October 2015, Defendant A received request from Defendant B to request that G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) select an entrusted controlled entity, and received personal contacts with Defendant B from that time. On December 14, 2015, Defendant A, who was selected as an entrusted controlled entity, maintained close-friendly relationship between Defendant B and mobile phone phone calls, etc.

② Prior to the selection of the entrusted controlled entity, Defendant B sent a text message stating that “Defendant A expressed his intent to assist Defendant A in drawing lots.”

③ In fact, Defendant A made eight bid bags immediately before the drawing of the consigned controlled entity, and posted scarlet tapes at the end of each side of the back of the envelope at a short time, and marked that the envelope containing the scarlet tape at the end of each side of the envelope in which the scarlet is marked, and marked one time at the center of the part where the back of the envelope is marked, so that the envelope can be identified in advance.

④ Furthermore, even if Defendant A received a claim from H (General Director) and J (Environmental Director) on the attachment of a scarf tape different from other bags, Defendant A replaced the existing envelope or removed the scarf tape from the existing envelope.