1. As to the fraud related to advance payment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part on the “U” contract with the victim H, among the facts charged in the instant case, out of the facts charged as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the facts, or by violating the procedure for examining evidence against the opposite evidence.

2. As to the interference with tendering, the interference with tendering does not require the actual appearance of the outcome as a dangerous crime when the fairness of tendering is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or other means.

Here, “act detrimental to the fairness of bidding” means an act that causes a situation that is likely to obstruct fair competition, which includes not only unfair influence on the formation of reasonable prices but also impeding the formation of fair competition schemes.

In addition, even if collusion was conducted only between all participants, but only between some participants, a bidding interference can be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11361, May 14, 2009, etc.). The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of providing bid prices to a business entity managed by the Defendant through prior agreement and allowing the business entity to participate in the bidding at the price offered by the Defendant constitutes a crime of interference with bidding, as it harms fair competition methods.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of bidding as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Direct violation of production.