The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to the first ground for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and related legal principles, the court below is justified in holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on deception, disposal, or property damage in fraud, or by violating the principle of statutory punishment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, where the court below discovered bid price available by O et al. by unlawful means and inform the joint defendant C et al. through V, W, joint defendant B, and joint defendant C et al. of this fact, and the bidder's conclusion of construction contract with the victim Korean Electric Power Corporation and construction contract that he/she does not know such circumstances.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the third ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and relevant legal principles, the lower court, on the grounds the grounds indicated in its reasoning, rendered a functional control over the crime by the Defendant by making an essential contribution to the crime list (2) and (3) of the first instance judgment as to B and C.

In light of the above, the defendant's measures to recognize joint principal offender's liability are justified, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the requirements for joint principal offender's establishment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. On the second ground for appeal

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take advantage of his/her mistake and inducing his/her dispositive act to obtain property or pecuniary advantage (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). In fraud, the term “influence” means that the other party misleads the other party to the facts that form the basis of judgment in carrying out a dispositive act, and the term “dispositive act” means that the deception provides property to the actor, etc.