In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated “” (Evidence No. 1590 pages), and the Defendant’s company used to submit an estimate is merely a single company, and that it does not engage in business activities (Evidence No. 1850 page), even if a multiple estimate contract is made, it would be lawful and fair competition methods to which one company actually participated in several prices using the name of multiple companies, and thus, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged constitutes a crime of interference with bidding. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Y Based on the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ allegation of interference with the performance of official business in relation to the supply of both sides of the vessel, Y’s tender notice and standard for determining the misapprehension of the legal principles on the tender notice and tender notice were made in order to procure a pair of products for combat use, and specified the source of equipment and required performance required by the Gun (hereinafter “written request for purchase of this case”) along with a two-way (8*30) purchase request for combat use (hereinafter “written request for purchase”). This includes: ① the weight is not more than 740g, including strings; ② the size is not more than 125 x170 x61m (breadth x height x x height); ③ deblem is not more than 6.5 d. (Evidence record 116); generally, the standards required for the purchase of any product in question are open to the public; Defendant 17.15 m. on the record of the trial of this case, even if the specific product falls short of the standards for purchase request;