2. 7.

Attorney Song-young (Korean War for Defendant B)

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Defendant A is an audit officer of the Small and Medium Business Administration from February 2, 2009 to June 20 of the same year; Defendant A is a person who has served as the president of the Small and Medium Business Administration from June 2009 to November 18, 2010; from December 3, 2010 to October 22, 2013, the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration of Daegu and North Korea; and from December 3, 2010 to October 22, 2013, Defendant A is a person who has worked as the president of the Small and Medium Business Information Promotion Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "PP") located * (hereinafter referred to as the "PP") of the Small and Medium Business Information Promotion Agency.

Defendant B, as the representative director of the Bostelecommunications (main state) established for the purpose of software development, system maintenance, etc., was aware of the Defendant who was working as a library of the Small and Medium Business Administration at the time of around 199 when he was in charge of the maintenance, repair, etc. of the system in the Small and Medium Business Administration.

On December 3, 2010, Defendant A, as a public institution, had been willing to complete the management system for each unit project scattered in the fixed number of small and medium enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the “development project of this case”) on January 17, 2012, when he was appointed as the president of the fixed number of persons working as quasi-governmental institutions, for the establishment of the joint project management system for small and medium enterprises that integrate and manage the management system for each unit project scattered in the fixed number of enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the “development project of this case”). However, the date of commencement was urged.

As a result, Defendant A may be selected as the instant development project service company by participating in the bidding for the selection of the ISD development company conducted by the Public Procurement Service around April 201, and thereafter, Defendant A participated in the bidding for the selection of the ISO development company conducted by the Public Procurement Service on the first day of February 2011, and thereafter, Defendant B participated in the bidding for the ISD development company conducted by the Public Procurement Service and formed a consortium with the ISO to receive a successful bid until September 19, 201, and completed the ISO development project, and Defendant A’s participation in the bidding for the ISD development project was completed at first time until the 100 million won project cost in accordance with Defendant A’s proposal and completed the ISO development project.

On the other hand, the selection of a fixed number of business operators is conducted in the order of ① public notice of the business conducted by the Public Procurement Service and the receipt of tenders by the service company, ② the technology evaluation of the fixed number of business operators, ③ the price evaluation of the service company that passed the technology evaluation conducted by the Public Procurement Service and the selection of a preferential bidder, ④ the technology cooperation between the fixed number of business operators and the preferential bidder, ⑤ the conclusion of the contract between the service company and the negotiating company. ② The technology evaluation of the fixed number of business operators is conducted in the order of execution of the technology evaluation committee. ② The technology evaluation of the fixed number of business operators was conducted in the order of execution of the technology evaluation committee, ② the number of employees in charge of the technology evaluation conducted in the ordinary fixed number of business members, and the number of employees in charge of the fixed number of business operators selected six persons who are able to attend by making a prior consultation with the fixed number of business operators in the last order of the fixed number of business operators, and finally, the proposal was conducted in the manner of examining the bidding company and the price evaluation (10%).

Accordingly, on October 28, 201, the above A, operated by the Defendant B, filed an application for participation in the tendering process for the service of the instant development project conducted by the Public Procurement Service. On October 31, 201, a member in charge of the support division for the operation of the fixed number A, upon receipt of six bidders' proposals from the Public Procurement Service on the same day, reported them to Defendant A, and Defendant A around that time, the above A was selected as the first priority holder of the instant development project, and Defendant B then requested Defendant B to recommend a technology evaluation member to be in charge of the technology evaluation of the instant development project, etc., by having the said three persons first attend the above A around October 31, 201, and included the technology evaluation list of the members in the technology evaluation of the instant development project.

Therefore, around November 1, 201, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government* * the early fixed number of nine floors so that the technology evaluation of the above-developed enterprise can be conducted fairly. However, Defendant A, upon the recommendation of Defendant B, selected as technology evaluation committee members by Defendant B, e, f, and g, respectively, conducted the technology evaluation of six business entities, including (Omission) on which the proposal for the development project, etc. of this case was submitted.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the technology evaluation review for the above companies of the Technology Information Promotion Agency by fraudulent means.

2. Determination.

The object of the act in the crime of interference with business is another person's business, and the other person here refers to natural and legal and non-legal entities other than the criminal (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do663 delivered on January 15, 199, etc.). According to the records, it is reasonable to view that the exercise of the authority to select the aforementioned technology evaluation committee by Defendant A, the president of the fixed number of personnel, in accordance with relevant regulations within the fixed number of personnel constitutes the execution of the duties of the fixed number of personnel as the defendant's agent. Thus, the above duties of selecting the fixed number of personnel can be deemed as the duties of the fixed number of personnel.

However, 'the fraudulent scheme' in relation to the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means under Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Code refers to the use of 'the fraudulent scheme' by causing mistake to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the offender's act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3839, Jun. 29, 2007; 2005Do6404, Dec. 27, 2007). The fact that Defendant A, who was determined by each evidence submitted by the prosecutor, participated in the tendering process for the development project of this case, was selected as a member of the technology evaluation committee by the authority of the technology evaluation committee upon recommendation of the candidate who was qualified for the technical evaluation committee of this case, it is difficult to view that Defendant A made an improper instruction in relation to the above selection, or that a person in charge of the work at the designated number of members, etc., caused mistake or a fraudulent scheme' as a site for interference with business.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, all of the defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and according to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act, the summary of the judgment against the defendants shall be published, and it is so decided as per Disposition.