Two days under detention prior to the rendering of judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. In collusion with Nonindicted 8, who is the nominal representative of Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 6 Co. 6 on the pretext of Nonindicted Co. 2, and is the de facto operator of Nonindicted Co. 7.

On December 6, 202, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, the Defendant, as Nonindicted 1, were notified of the sale of the automatic string box and the automatic string machine, by giving up Nonindicted 8’s right to participate in the bidding at the Seoul 1, Seoul 199, the Seoul 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, the Defendant, who was actually engaged in the bidding of the said 1, were to be exempt from bid performance guarantee by maintaining the business title of the said 3 years of contract period, and the automatic 2, Nonindicted 1, 201, who was actually engaged in the bidding of the said 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 1, who was actually engaged in the bidding of the said 2, Nonindicted 3, and the 1,2011.

A. At around 14:30 on December 17, 2002, Nonindicted Co. 6, who participated in the first bidding in accordance with the above agreement, was not present at the bidding box conducted at the fifth floor bidding room of the Seoul subway Corporation. Nonindicted Co. 1 and the Defendant participated in only Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 9, Nonindicted Co. 9, (trade name omitted), (trade name omitted), and Nonindicted Co. 12, while participating in the bidding box conducted at the fifth floor bidding room of the Seoul subway Corporation, Nonindicted Co. 12, upon acceptance of the types of renunciation of the Defendant’s bidding and acceptance of less than the appraisal price, de facto waiver of the competitive bidding and the bid offered less than the appraisal price, by having Nonindicted Co. 1, 501,55,000 won and more than the price 1,620,620,000 won in a successful bid.

B. In the automatic local photographer tender conducted at the same place at around 15:30 on the same day, when Nonindicted Co. 1 gave up only Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 2, a real competitor, by failing to participate in the bid in accordance with the above agreement, Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 9, a bidder on the part of the Defendant, are merely merely merely merely merely merely, and as if Nonindicted Co. 7, an existing business operator, was a sole tender, Nonindicted Co. 8 belongs to Nonindicted Co. 8. In fact, Nonindicted Co. 5, who participated in the said tender on behalf of Nonindicted Co. 1, in response to the appropriate price at KRW 3,113,00,000, in fact, caused Nonindicted Co. 2, who participated in the said tender to be awarded the bid for the said automatic photographer project, thereby doing so by deceptive means.

2. Establishment of a separate corporation in the name of Nonindicted 5, thereby participating in the bid for the lease of the aforementioned automatic photographer, and receiving a successful bid, in collusion with Nonindicted 5

around October 8, 2002, at a national bank (branch name omitted) branch in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a separate deposit of KRW 500 million in the name of Nonindicted 5, the promoters representative using Defendant’s own money, and issued a certificate of payment of shares. On the same day, the Seoul Seomun-dong Seoul District District Court’s Commercial Registry in Jungmun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, accompanied by a written confirmation, makes the total amount of capital KRW 500 million, the purpose of the corporation is to manufacture a vending machine and wholesale business, and the registration of incorporation of the non-indicted 2 corporation with the representative director as of the non-indicted 5 was completed, and all of the above separate deposits were withdrawn on the 9th of the same month following the following day, and the payment of shares is fictitious by using KRW 310 million out of the above money for the operation funds of the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3 corporation.

3. As if Nonindicted Co. 1 transferred the completion of pop-up shop business operated by Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 1’s mind to establish a separate corporation under the name of Nonindicted Co. 13, and in collusion with Nonindicted Co.

On December 27, 2001, the Seoul Central District Court made a separate deposit of KRW 1.2 billion in the name of the promoters in the name of the above non-indicted 13, the representative of the promoters using KRW 1.2 billion borrowed from the defendant's money of KRW 200 million and KRW 1.2 billion in the name of the company (name of the branch omitted) located in Jung-gu, Seoul Central District Court on December 27, 2001, and issued a written confirmation of the payment of the shares. On the 28th of the same month following the following day, the Seoul District Court's commercial registry office attached the above written confirmation and issued a certificate of the payment of the shares to KRW 1.2 billion in the total capital, and the manufacture and wholesale business of the vending machine for the purpose of the corporation. After the registration of incorporation of the non-indicted 3 corporation with the representative director of the non-indicted 13 was completed, all of the above separate deposit of KRW 1.2 billion in the capital was withdrawn to the non-indicted 14 billion.

1. The witness Nonindicted 15 and Nonindicted 5’s each legal statement (excluding each part contrary to the above recognition)

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the Defendant and Nonindicted 5 by the prosecution (including the statement portion of Nonindicted 8, but excluding the part against the above recognition among each statement of the Defendant and Nonindicted 5)

1. Each written statement made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21

1. The statement of Nonindicted 8

1. Each report on investigation, etc. listed in the investigation records ( pages 796, 873, 1036, 1039, 1144, 1155, 1382, 165, 1714, 1801, 1804, 2006, 2075, 2268 pages, 2272, 2273);

A. As to the interference with bidding

The Defendant conspireds with Nonindicted 8 in the bid for goods storage, and that Nonindicted Company 1 consulted in advance with Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 9, and Nonindicted Co. 9, etc., but there was no fact that (mutual omission) enterprises, (trade name omitted) enterprises, and Nonindicted Co. 12 were completely in exclusive charge of them. In addition, Nonindicted Co. 5 of Nonindicted Co. 2, Co. 2, in response to the bid, regardless of this, did not constitute a crime of interference with the bidding because it could not be seen that Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 7, Co. 2, Ltd. were awarded the bid by participating in the bid.

B. As to the crime of soliciting payment under the Commercial Act

In addition, the defendant, as to the issue of paying-in price, transferred the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the Red Sea, operated by the non-indicted 1 corporation on October 9, 2002, to the non-indicted 2 corporation in the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 910 million won, and paid the above transfer price in the amount of KRW 310 million out of the incorporated capital of the non-indicted 2 corporation. On December 28, 2001, the defendant transferred the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of pop-up pop-up selling to the non-indicted 3 corporation in the non-indicted 13 to the non-indicted 1, and paid KRW 1 billion out of the incorporated capital of the non-indicted 3 corporation in the above transfer price including value-added tax, so as to have taken over the assets equivalent to the above transfer price, the defendant cannot be deemed to have harmed the capital, and thus, the crime of provisional payment is not established.

2. Facts

According to the above-mentioned evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The relationship between the parties

Nonindicted Co. 1 is a company operated by the Defendant as the representative director. Meanwhile, Nonindicted Co. 8 was a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 and was a director of Nonindicted Co. 7, and the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 7 was a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 8 operated the same as Nonindicted Co. 6 in fact.

(b) Circumstances up to the award.

The first Seoul subway Corporation concluded a lease agreement on the installation and operation of the goods storage box among convenience facilities in the Seoul subway Station and installed and operated the goods storage box. Nonindicted Co. 7 concluded a lease agreement on the installation and operation of the automatic local photographer, and the Seoul subway Corporation established and operated the automatic local photographer. As the term of each of the above lease agreement expires on December 31, 2002, as the term of each of the above lease agreement expires on December 6, 2002, the Seoul subway Corporation announced 4 lease contracts on the installation and operation of convenience facilities, such as the red sea board, the goods storage box, the toilet vending machine (this bid cancellation on December 16, 2002), the automatic local photographer's vending machine (this bid cancellation on December 16, 200), and the price of each service contract from February 14, 200 to 15:30 on February 17, 202. According to the above announcement, the successful bidder was determined to be the successful bidder on December 13, 2001.

On February 17, 2002, from around 14:00 to 15:30, which was designated as the bidding date, the bidding was conducted in the order of the package, the package, the package, the package, and the automatic local photographer. The Defendant and Nonindicted 8 submitted to the Seoul subway Corporation a letter of renunciation of the tender to the chief executive officer of Nonindicted 1 Company, the vice president of Nonindicted 1 Company, and the vice president of Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24, the vice president of Nonindicted 7 Company, to the Seoul subway Corporation, by preparing a letter of renunciation of the tender to the effect that the Defendant did not interfere with the existing other party's territory before the execution of the tender, and the Defendant did not interfere with the former other party's territory.

As a result, Nonindicted Co. 1 was written on the date of the above bidding, Nonindicted Co. 3, 500 won, Nonindicted Co. 4, 500 won, 50 billion won, 60 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 60 million won, 300 won, 50 million won, 60 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 60 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 300 won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 60 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 50 million won, 500 won, 1.5 billion won, 68 billion won, 300 million won, 1.5 billion won, 5 billion won, and 1.5 billion won, 5 billion won, 1.5 billion won, 5 billion won, 5000 million won, respectively.

C. Relationship between other bidders and Nonindicted Co. 1 and the Defendant

In collusion between the Defendant and Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted Co. 6, and Nonindicted Co. 1, in the automatic localr photographic machine, have waived their respective bids, and in addition, the following are relevant to the other companies participating in the said bidding, Nonindicted Co. 1, and the Defendant.

(1) In the case of Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 9, and Nonindicted Co. 4

In the case of the above 4 enterprises, the Defendant recognized that it was difficult for the Defendant to carry out as a tendering company for the storage of goods in the form of a tendering box for the purpose of preventing the bid from being exposed to the bid at the time and preventing the competition counter-party from causing any harm.

In addition, Nonindicted Co. 3 is also a company established by Nonindicted Co. 1, 200 million won (the shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 3 is Nonindicted Co. 25, 13, 23, 26, 27, and 28, or 1.200 million won from the account of Nonindicted Co. 1 and the account of Nonindicted Co. 30, 100 won borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 1 and the account of Nonindicted Co. 30, 100 won (the share price was paid to KRW 29, 300,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 1 and the company was released immediately after the incorporation of the company) on December 28, 201. The share price of Nonindicted Co. 2 was collected from Nonindicted Co. 30, 300,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 350,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, 203.

In addition, Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 36 were the former auditors of Nonindicted Co. 1. Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 27, the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 1, are the shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 32, the managing director of Nonindicted Co. 9, as the directors of Nonindicted Co. 2, and the shareholders, Nonindicted Co. 34, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 38, the auditor of Nonindicted Co. 2, the auditor of Nonindicted Co. 3, are also Nonindicted Co. 28.

Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 used the office on the first floor underground in the Seoul subway Station (name omitted) and discovered the business registration certificate of Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 2 as well as the recent sales log on the mixed Sea Pream Business when the office of Nonindicted Co. 1 was seized and seized.

On the other hand, as seen above, when Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 entered into a contract with the Seoul subway Corporation after being awarded a contract for the business of cutting down the Red Sea, goods sales box, and automatic local photographer, the performance guarantee is against Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant, Nonindicted Co. 13 (Representative Director of Nonindicted Co. 3), Nonindicted Co. 33 (Representative Director of Nonindicted Co. 3), Nonindicted Co. 32 (Representative Director of Nonindicted Co. 9), Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 9, and Nonindicted Co. 3, respectively, and the performance guarantee was against Nonindicted Co. 1, and the bid performance guarantee was against Nonindicted Co. 36 (including Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 4), Nonindicted Co. 3 (Representative Director of Nonindicted Co. 3), Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 24, Nonindicted Co. 39, Nonindicted Co. 136, Nonindicted Co. 369, Nonindicted Co. 36, and Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 29, Nonindicted Co.

(2) In the case of any other non-indicted 12 corporation, (trade name omitted), (trade name omitted), or (trade name omitted)

Nonindicted Co. 12 is a non-indicted Co. 15 with no asset established on November 9, 2001 by Nonindicted Co. 15 with payment of KRW 50 million, and annual sales are merely KRW 90 million for a year of 2002, and thus, it appears that Nonindicted Co. 12 would have received the bidding price or food with documents. In this case, Nonindicted Co. 15 appears to have received an investigation from the prosecutor, and it appears that Nonindicted Co. 15 would have received information from the Defendant, and it would have received the collusion system from the Defendant, and Nonindicted Co. 15 would have received the bidding price from Nonindicted Co. 3’s guarantor at the time of bidding registration on Dec. 16, 2002 (the first bid price of Nonindicted Co. 100). However, when entering Nonindicted Co. 3’s bidding, Nonindicted Co. 12 was written with Nonindicted Co. 100 million, the first bidding price of Nonindicted Co. 3, which was 900,000 won.

(d) Circumstances after the award was made.

After receiving the successful bid as above on January 20, 2003, the Defendant sought a formal apology with Nonindicted 22, who is the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 7, and sought from Nonindicted Co. 22 on January 20, 2003 on the fact that it did not comply with the prior bid documentation, and there is no need for Nonindicted Co. 2 to follow the business in relation to the automatic local photographer business awarded by Nonindicted Co. 2 for the smooth acquisition and takeover of the business. If the Defendant wishes, it would bring about the business again, or give up or waive the business, and it actually shows that the Defendant was awarded the successful bid for the instant automatic photographer business in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, and around December 30, 2002, the Defendant believed that the Defendant was actually operating the automatic photographer business from Nonindicted Co. 241, in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, to purchase KRW 101,200,000, and had resolved the purchase price from the Defendant and the Nonindicted Co. 1.

E. Effect of the instant strike on the Defendant

If, in this case, it is proved that the defendant was prevented from bidding and that the defendant was convicted and finally confirmed, the contract will be terminated, and the contract will not be deprived of the qualifications for bidding in the future, and the same result would be the same as being subject to declaration of bankruptcy.

F. Statement of major related persons other than the defendant

In collusion with the Defendant, Non-Indicted 8, who participated in the bid for the storage of goods, and participated in the bidding for the storage of goods, could be awarded a successful bid at a lower price than that of Non-Indicted 1 corporation. In the automatic local photographer tender, Non-Indicted 1 corporation was absent from the bidding for the defendant, but the defendant actually belongs to himself on the ground of Non-Indicted 5's non-Indicted 2 corporation and was awarded a successful bid for Non-Indicted 7 corporation. If Non-Indicted 8 did not believe the bid collusion, it interferes with the fair competition by bidding for a much more safe price than that of Non-Indicted 7 corporation, which was presented by Non-Indicted 7 corporation. The defendant was talked with other companies in the bid collusion as above, which would go far far away from the rice price of Non-Indicted 5 corporation. Accordingly, if Non-Indicted 5 waiveed the bid in the bidding, it would be more likely that the defendant and the non-Indicted 5 corporation will not be able to give any disadvantage than the bid price of Non-Indicted 8.

Nonindicted 5 asserted that, in order to carry on the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the non-indicted 2, 90 million won was established, the business of the defendant was acquired in KRW 300 million and paid KRW 100 million. In other words, the business of the business of the automatic local photographic flag was awarded a successful bid, and the purchase of KRW 101 million per 1.2 billion per 1,000 won and paid KRW 1 billion. On November 24, 2003, the defendant resigned from the representative director of the non-indicted 2, and the investigation on November 24, 2003 (the 7th examination report of the prosecution), the defendant actually operated the non-indicted 2 corporation, and the defendant was merely the president employed by the defendant, and the non-indicted 2 corporation was also a successful bid for the business of the defendant and the defendant.

3. Determination

(a) Part of the interference with bidding;

According to the above facts, the defendant's bidding process in collusion with the non-indicted 8, and the third party 1 corporation's bidding process was waived, and the non-indicted 3 corporation, the non-indicted 2 corporation, the non-indicted 9 corporation, and the non-indicted 4 corporation are merely limited to the defendant's bidding, and the (mutual omitted) company and the (mutual omitted) company's bidding's bidding price is much less than 1.582 million won, which is no longer than 1.5 billion won, and the defendant's bidding performance guarantee was completed with the defendant's help and with the defendant's help at least 310 million won, and the defendant's bidding's bidding's bidding's bidding's bidding process was no more than 5 billion won, and the defendant's bidding's bidding process was no more than 1 corporation, the defendant's bidding's bidding process was no more than 50 million won, and the defendant's bidding's bidding's bidding price was no more than 1 corporation and the defendant's bidding's bidding's bidding's bidding's 2.

Next, in the automatic photographic tender, Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation and Nonindicted Co. 9 corporation, among the participating Nonindicted Co. 2 corporation and Nonindicted Co. 2 corporation, were actually under the control of the defendant, by means of collusion between the defendant and Nonindicted Co. 8, and the defendant gave up his bid, and Nonindicted Co. 2 corporation was established for the purpose of business expansion in advance, and Nonindicted Co. 2 corporation or Nonindicted Co. 9 was merely a subordinate company, regardless of whether the defendant was able to receive a successful bid in the automatic photographic tender, and, on the other hand, the third-party 8 was actually operated by Nonindicted Co. 8 and the third-party 7 corporation did not have any genuine intent since both the third-party 8 and the third-party 8 did not appear to have agreed on the fair bid. In light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 5 and the third-party 8 did not have any more reliable intent to use the bid price, it is more likely that the defendant would have agreed on the bid and the third-party 2 corporation will not have any more reliable bidding.

(b) Details of the crime of conspiracy for payment;

The crime of soliciting payment under the Commercial Act is to regulate the act undermining the purpose of the Act to maintain the capital of a company. Thus, even if the acquisition value of stocks paid to a bank for the establishment of a stock company was immediately withdrawn after the registration of incorporation, if the withdrawn amount is used as the price to acquire assets equivalent to the amount of stocks paid, the crime of soliciting payment is not established.

In the instant case, Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were de facto controlled by the Defendant. Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 1 were mobilized by Nonindicted Co. 3 and then withdrawn the money from Nonindicted Co. 1 on the following day. The Defendant’s withdrawal as above, Nonindicted Co. 2, including Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2600, was 310 million won as the transfer price of the right to own business of accommodation, and Nonindicted Co. 3, Co. 1, 2000 won, including 100, were 100,000 won for pop-up container business, were 10,000 won, and 10,000 won was able to receive money from Nonindicted Co. 1 and 200,000 won, and 200,000 won was 30,000 won, and 300,000 won was able to receive money from Nonindicted Co. 1, 200.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in the crime of conspiracy for Payment of Non-Indicted 2 Stock Company as stated in the most severe punishment and circumstances);

1. Calculation of days pending trial: Article 57 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution (the first offender and the Defendant denied a crime; however, if the facts charged in the instant case are confirmed to be guilty, it would result in the same result as the Defendant is subject to an economic declaration of bankruptcy, and the facts alone would result in serious compromises, and Nonindicted 8, the complainant of Nonindicted 6, also appears to be easy to establish a bid collusion and bid bid to the extent that the Defendant would meet the bidding documentation between Nonindicted 7 and the Defendant).

Judges Lee Hun-tae