[사기등][집19(1)형,163]
In regard to a crime of interference with auction or bidding, the term "act detrimental to fairness" shall be interpreted.
(b) Whether the act of the most competitive act in bidding constitutes a crime of interference with bidding even where the act of the most competitive act does not pass through the means to prevent the bid.
This crime does not require the unfair result as a dangerous crime, and it includes not only the act of determining the price, but also the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method. Therefore, it is merely a means to prevent the studio testing and thus it does not harm the national interest in the bid price or cause the bidder to gain unjust profits. Even though the bid price was higher than the situation price, it actually harms the competitive bidding method in that the bid price was the bid price as the bid price.
Article 315 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Do1195 delivered on December 29, 1967
Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 70No323 decided Feb. 19, 1971
The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal by defense counsel
According to the records, if all evidence cited by the court below are examined, facts constituting a crime of interference with bidding as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance can be fully recognized. The crime of interference with auction or bidding as stipulated in Article 315 of the Criminal Act does not require the unfair result as a so-called danger crime, and the crime of interference with auction or bidding's price is not only in determining auction or bidding's price, but also in the act of impairing fair and fair auction or bidding's competition (see Supreme Court Decision 67Do1195 delivered on December 29, 1967). Thus, since the defendant's act of manipulation of the highest competitor, which the court below recognized by the original judgment, is merely a means to prevent snow and negligence, it does not harm the national interest in the bid price or allow the bidder to gain unfair profits to the non-indicted, even though the successful bid price was higher than the price in thecheon-do tender price, it is the sole competitive tender of the non-indicted, and thus, it is justified in the judgment of the court below that it interferes with the competitive bidding's with the competitive bidding.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)