입찰방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
가. 사실오인 및 법리오해 1) 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기), 사기 및 입찰방해의 점 가) 사실오인 피고인은, ① 2009. 7. 1.경 문경시 ‘AV’(별지 범죄일람표1 순번 2), ② 2009. 7. 28.경 상주시 ‘AW’(별지 범죄일람표1 순번 3), ③ 2011. 4. 15.경 문경시 ‘AX’(별지 범죄일람표2 순번 2), ④ 2011. 6. 28.경 경북 의성군 ‘AY’(별지 범죄일람표2 순번 3), ⑤ 2009. 11.경 상주시 ‘S’(원심판결 범죄사실 제4의 가항), ⑥ 2011. 4.경 문경시 ‘T’(원심판결 범죄사실 제4의 나항), ⑦ 2011. 1.경 경북 군위군 ‘AC’(원심판결 범죄사실 제7항), ⑧ 2011. 3. 초순경 경북 청송군 ‘AG’(원심판결 범죄사실 제9항), ⑨ 2011. 4. 초순경 경북 의성군 ‘AJ’(원심판결 범죄사실 제10항), ⑩ 2011. 4.경 영천시 ‘AM’(원심판결 범죄사실 제11항), ⑪ 2011. 5.경 영천시 ‘AN’(원심판결 범죄사실 제12항)에 관한 각 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률(이하 ‘특정경제범죄법’이라 한다)위반(사기), 사기 및 입찰방해의 점(이하 ‘① 범행’ 내지 ‘⑪ 범행’과 같이 특정한다)에 관여하지 않았다.
On the other hand, in relation to the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), fraud, and interference with bidding, the defendant merely served as a mere delivery of bid price and bid price between E and F, and did not lead each of the above crimes.
B. Even if it is recognized that the Defendant was involved in the instant fraud, the act of disposal by the finance officer in the ordering office due to the Defendant, etc.’s deception ought to be deemed to be in itself a construction contract with the successful bidder, so the crime of fraud has been completed upon the conclusion of the construction contract, and the payment of the construction cost therefrom is merely a situation after the occurrence of fraud.
Therefore, the defendant et al.