A. As to Paragraph 1 of the facts charged (No. 6, 2003)

The apartment sale price is also possible, and there is a concern about difficult development, restriction on resale right, and simultaneous sale at the same time, so the Defendants need to negotiate the sale price in order to overcome this. At the time of the above meeting, since the third project plan approval application ( March 24, 2003) was made immediately before the above meeting, the apartment sale price at the time of the application for the approval of the project plan was determined by the upper limit, the above meeting was appropriate for collusion. At the time of the above meeting, all of the working parties were present. The above working parties were present at the meeting. The above working parties appeared to have entrusted the head office with the agreement of the selling price at the time of the above meeting. Construction-rental housing (rental-lease housing) and members (the representative director's management date) and members (the representative director's management date) cited on the grounds that there was no act of execution. Rather, all the companies except the above companies set project costs above the lower limit of the project cost, and the Defendants were sufficiently recognized to have established the lower limit of collusion in the press report or the meeting minutes, etc.

B. As to the facts charged No. 2 (No. 16, 2003)

At the time of the above conference, the Defendants were in collusion with the selling price of land and construction costs at the level of KRW 7 million per square year by making the ratio of the land cost and construction costs to 45:55 on the basis of the land lot already calculated, and the actual selling price was within the scope of the agreement, and according to relevant evidence, such as the entries in the business pocketbooks of Nonindicted Party 1 and Defendant 18, the Defendants are sufficiently recognized.

2. Judgment of party members

A. Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Mono Regulation and Fair Trade Act”) prohibits enterprisers from engaging in “an act of unfairly restricting competition.” The term “joint” here means that there is a communication among multiple enterprisers to restrict their respective business activities, and accordingly, the agreement is reached. In order to establish a collaborative act, each party’s act is not sufficient to conform with external appearance. There is a communication among artificially formed doctors, thereby resulting in the mutual agreement between the parties through the formation of a common sense of restricting competition. Further, the term “communication with intent” means a broad meaning of agreement, and the other party is aware of the existence of an agreement, namely, the existence of an agreement, is established, and the other party is also aware of the existence of an agreement. Such agreement should not only be made in an explicit manner, such as a contract, agreement, resolution, etc., but also include a case where the other party is bound by the mutual agreement, and it should also be included that the other party is bound by the mutual agreement.

Meanwhile, as seen above, Article 19(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act prohibits unfair collaborative acts, and such unfair collaborative acts are not clear and secret in light of the nature of the act, and thus it is not easy to prove such agreement, so if only two indirect facts (Article 19(5) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act) are proved, the above act is presumed to be unfair collaborative acts (Article 19(5). However, the above presumption provision may be invoked in cases where the Fair Trade Commission imposes a penalty as an administrative act, and it is natural that the above presumption provision may not be invoked in the procedure of imposing a penalty, and it shall not be subject to strict proof of criminal facts in light of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is difficult to secure direct evidence in light of the nature of the act, so even if it is impossible to prove indirect facts or circumstantial facts, the degree of proof should be strict to the extent that the judge can not have reasonable doubt.

B. As to “the Meeting of March 6, 2003”

(5) According to the evidence presented by the prosecutor, ① the Defendants’ 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 606th 6th 6th 606th 6th 606th 6th 605th 6th 6th 608th 6th 6th 6th 606th 6th 6th 6th 6th 600.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in this case, it stated the following purport: ① the above 3.6.m. newspaper article or the defendant company's internal document was scheduled to sell for April at the time of the above 8.m. However, it is difficult for the court below to find that the company's 1.6m. company's 6m. assembly's 20m. assembly's 7m. assembly's 4m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 7m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 1m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 8m.m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 1m. assembly's 6m. assembly's 1m.'s 6m. assembly's 7m. assembly's 1m. assembly's 7m. assembly's 1m. assembly's 2003m.

In full view of the above circumstances, even if there was such an agreement as stated in the minutes mentioned above at the meeting of the consultative body on March 6, 2003, it is difficult to view this agreement as a collusion agreement as the prosecutor's assertion. On the other hand, the consultation on the sale price and the sale method at the above meeting was an estimate of sale price or a sale method to present the report materials to the press company in order to restrain the attempt to increase the land price of the Korea Land Corporation. We fully accept the Defendants' assertion that the consultation on the sale price and the sale method at the above meeting was a rough

C. As to the “Meeting of July 16, 2003”

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, even if Defendant 18, who is an employee of the same soil, did not personally file an accusation of the above 18th day of July 2003, 200, the first day of the above 6-1, 394 (Investigation Record 6-1, 394 pages): "It is desirable to make the sale price calculated-land unit and construction cost standard: : It is the same (e.g., building cost = 4: 55 degrees)"; and under the title of "pre-sale price scheduled," it is difficult to find that there is a large amount of 6.8 million Won interest rate, 7.7 billion won interest rate, 3.6 billion won interest rate, 29 square meters interest rate, 6.3 million won interest rate rate, 6.3 million won interest rate, 6.7 billion won interest rate, 15th and above 15th day of the 15th day of the members, 300,000 new 4.81.

On the other hand, in general, when apartment sale price is determined and approved and publicly announced, the value-added tax is exempted on land (Article 12(1)12 of the Value-Added Tax Act). This is because value-added tax is imposed on land only for the portion of the building and the supplier pays value-added tax by reflecting the sale price. In this case, in order for the taxpayer to pay value-added tax less than value-added tax, if the taxpayer voluntarily increases the land price and allows the taxpayer to lower the building price and pay value-added tax on the building accordingly, the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax base for the portion of the building shall be determined by the method of division in such a case. In other words, the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a certain method (in principle, the difference between the value of the land and the value of the building, etc. is unclear, the standard market price, the appraised value, the book value, etc.) shall be calculated in proportion to the value of the building calculated by the method of division in proportion to the value of the land and the building cost already determined by the construction cost.

In addition, according to each of the above evidence, the actual price of the defendant company's 20 square meters is 6,374,00 won per square, and 6,588 won per square year (29.75 square), and the 30 square meters per square year is 6,604,000 won (33.76 square meters per square year) and 7,157,000 won (39.05 square meters per square year) are 7,57,000 won per square year before and after the 20th meeting of the above 30,000 Won (excluding the above 7,576,000 won or above, if the 40,000 Won or above is more than the national housing size) and the 17,000 won company's 7,000 won per square year's 40,000 won per square year's 76,000 won per square year's 27,000 won per square year.

In full view of all the above circumstances, the Prosecutor’s assertion that collusions with the usual selling price of KRW 7 million at the meeting of July 16, 2003 by determining the ratio of land and construction cost at the meeting of July 16, 2003 is not acceptable.

D. Therefore, the above evidence and the facts of recognition are insufficient to recognize each of the facts charged in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged in this case, and the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there is no proof of each crime is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hongk-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Fung-tae