Defendants 1 and 7 years of imprisonment, 8 (Defendant 4 of the appellate trial), and 18 (Defendant 9 of the appellate trial judgment) shall be punished by imprisonment for 4 years, by imprisonment for 2, 12 (Defendant 5 of the appellate trial judgment), 16 (Defendant 7 of the appellate trial judgment), 19 (Defendant 10 of the appellate trial judgment), and 22 (Defendant 12 of the appellate trial judgment) for 3 years and 7 years, by imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, by 5, 9, 10, 17 (Defendant 8 of the appellate trial judgment), 13 (Defendant 6 of the appellate trial judgment), 14, by imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months, by imprisonment for 1 year and 1 year, 3, 4, and 6, by imprisonment for 1 year and 1 year, 15, 20, 23, and 24, and by imprisonment for 16 months and 16 months, respectively.

2. Suspension of execution;

However, with respect to defendants 5, 9, 10, and 17, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and with respect to defendants 3, 4, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, and 24, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years.

3. Probation and social service;

Defendant 5, 9, 10, and 17 shall be put on probation for each one year, and shall be ordered to provide community service for 200 hours each, and to receive probation for each one year for Defendant 3, 4, 6, 13, and 14, and provide community service for 120 hours each, and shall be ordered to receive probation for each one year for Defendant 15, 20, 23, and 24 and to receive probation for each one year and provide community service for 80 hours each.

4. Innocence;

Defendant 21 (Defendant 11) and Defendant 1, 16, and 13-13 are not guilty of fraud by using computers, etc. around January 2007.

On November 16, 2011, Defendant 6 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months as a crime of occupational embezzlement in the Young-gu District Court’s Yeongdeungpo Branch, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 4, 2012.

Punishment of the crime

m. Presumed facts (a normal successful bid process through a theater)

The National Electronic Procurement System of the Public Procurement Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Electronic Procurement System") shall announce publicly the financial commissioner of the ordering entity, such as a local government, etc., the construction of facilities, such as the basic amount and assessment rate (±3%) before opening the opening, and the financial commissioner shall arbitrarily select two of the 15 lot numbers with the lowest bid price within the limit of 【3% of the basic amount of the construction work (hereinafter referred to as the "e.g.") from the server of the Public Procurement Service through the financial commissioner certified before opening the opening, and then combines with the lottery numbers corresponding to the examples after mixing the value of the construction with the financial commissioner's authentication, and again transmit and store the winning price to the server of the Public Procurement Service (e.g., the process of creating and storing the winning lot number PC is not indicated in the financial commissioner's PC). The reasonable bid number for the public announcement of the construction of the facilities shall be 700 million won or more, and then the highest bid price shall be less than 1500 million won at the highest bid price for the construction project.

【Individual criminal facts

1. Defendant 1, 13, 2, and 16’s fraud by using computers, etc. (2013 group 1633 group 163 group 2013 group 1236 group 2013 group 1236);

Defendant 1, 13, 16, and 2 simultaneously develop and establish a malicious program that can be seen by hacking 15 examples (including a code) immediately before it is encrypted in the PC (hereinafter “CPC music program”) and a bid bidder (construction company) with two pre-designated numbers of 4 pre-designated numbers in order to transmit it to the Public Procurement Service server (hereinafter “tender PC music program”) and an automatic connection server connected with the above malicious program, respectively. Defendant 1, 13, 16, and 2 also develop and install the malicious program for the above financial commissioner in the ordering place, and install the PC music program in the PC in the tender manager in the PC so that the bidders selected by each bidder from among four pre-designated numbers and two of the winning numbers, and notify the relevant financial commissioner of the pre-determined bid price by arbitrarily using the pre-determined number 15 of the bid bid price to be selected from among the winning numbers designated in the connected server.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, 13, and 16, along with the above malicious code around October 206, developed and installed a server (Internet address 1 omitted) connected with the above malicious code, and, as if the bidders tender participants were sent reference materials for bidding using e-mail, installed a bidder PC music program by means of pretending to send them to a large number of bidders tender participants, and attaching and sending an automatic file to be installed. Defendant 2 installed the PC in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s financial commissioner who ordered “Seongbukcheon Restoration Corporation (3-1 phase), installed the above financial commissioner PC with the above financial commissioner PC, and operated it, Defendant 1, etc., notified Nonindicted 15 (including 15 order) to the above financial commissioner in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and notified Nonindicted 3 15 won of the bid bid price at KRW 160,560,00,000 of the bid price at KRW 250,000,000,000.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to enter and change information into a computer or any other information processing device without authority to obtain financial benefits equivalent to KRW 3,622,149,90.

1) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, and 5

The Defendants, in the manner described in the above paragraph (1), intended to receive illegal successful bidding from Nonindicted 7 Construction Company 5 operated by Defendant 5, and recruited to receive the price in sequence from Nonindicted 7 Construction Company. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 13, at the same time, informed Defendant 2 of the 15 preliminary bid price in the financial commissioner PC, which is the place where the order was given for the construction of PC facilities, of the 15 preliminary bid price. Defendant 1 and 13 again notified Defendant 4 of the average bid price and the bid price of the 60 preliminary bid price and the bid price of the 60 preliminary bid price and the bid price of the 70 preliminary bid price and the bid price of the 60 preliminary bid price and the bid price of the 5 preliminary bid in the name of Defendant 4 and the bid price of Defendant 60 preliminary bid, respectively. Defendant 2 again notified Defendant 4 and Defendant 4 of the average bid price and the bid price of the 60 preliminary bid in the name of Defendant 4 and the bid.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in sequence to enter or change information into a computer or any other information processing device without authority, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 753,637,600.

4. Fraud by using computers, etc. (2013rd group 1633) of Defendant 1, 13, and 22;

The Defendants, in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1), received illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company operated by Defendant 22, and conspired to receive compensation from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 13 knew in advance about October 207, the financial commissioner PC, which is the place of ordering the “Culebro Packaging Corporation”, of the financial commissioner PC installed, of the “Culebro Packaging Corporation”. Defendant 1 and 13 came to know in advance 15 preliminary examples (including the first order). Defendant 2, in the name of Nonindicted 111, notified Defendant 22 of the bid bid price at KRW 165,837,546, based on which the bid price applied the bid price after considering four preliminary examples, and notified Defendant 22 of the bid price at KRW 165,837,546 on the basis of the bid price at KRW 160,501, May 16, 2015.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in sequence to enter or change information into a computer or any other information processing device without authority, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 166,093,00.

5. Fraud by using computers, etc. (2013 senior group 1633) of Defendant 1, 16, and 22;

The Defendants, in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1), received illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company operated by Defendant 22, and conspired to receive compensation from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 16 knew in advance about March 208, 15 examples (including the first order) from the finance officer PC, which is the ordering place of the “stop-day Packaging Corporation”, using the financial PC music program installed in the manner of distributing around March 2008, and informed Defendant 22 of the bid bid price at KRW 151,442,123, based on which the bid price applied the bid price was calculated by changing and manipulating the number of the pre-designated examples to four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program, and then notified Defendant 22 of the bid bid price at KRW 151,442,123, and Defendant 22 of the bid price at KRW 305,519,619.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in sequence to enter or change information into a computer or any other information processing device without authority, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to 152,091,50 won.

6. Defendants 1, 16, and 22’s computer, etc. fraud, bidding obstruction (2013 senior group 1633);

The Defendants, in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1), received illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company operated by Defendant 22, and conspired to receive compensation from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 16, using the PC music program in advance distributed around December 2008 and the 15 examples (including 15 order) from the finance officer PC of the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, the place where the order was given for the “Aero-ro and Atopy Small River Restoration Works” was given, and Defendant 2, using the PC’s PC’s PC’s PC music program, notified Defendant 22 of the bid price on the basis of the bid price at KRW 472,614,862, and the bid price at KRW 472,614,862, and Defendant 2, the bid price at KRW 130,218,210 of the bid price at KRW 18,201.

As a result, Defendants conspired in sequence to acquire property benefits equivalent to KRW 472,617,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering information without authority in computer or other information processing devices, and at the same time, made bidding process by deceptive means. The Defendants, including this, entered and changed information to each data processing device, such as computer, three times from December 2008 to March 2009 without authority, thereby allowing each data processing to obtain property benefits equivalent to KRW 2,436,496,980 in total and at the same time obtaining information processing by means of deceptive means.

7. Defendant 1, 16, and 18’s computer, etc. fraud, bid obstruction (2013 high group 1633) with Nonindicted 1

The Defendants, along with Non-Indicted 1, conspired with Non-Indicted 12 Construction Company, to receive the price from Non-Indicted 12, operated by Defendant 18 in the same manner as indicated in the above paragraph (1). As such, Defendant 1 and 16 came to know in advance about March 209 the 15 examples (including the first order) from the financial commissioner PC in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, the ordering location of the “Yan-Yancheon-cheon Road Packing Corporation”, using the PC music program for the financial commissioner in charge of the financial commissioner in the financial commissioner in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, the number of the bidders selected so that four pre-designated examples may be selected through the bidder’s PC music program, and then calculated the bid price of the above four (45,094,980 won after averaging the bid price, and notified Non-Indicted 1 of the bid price on the basis of this, Non-Indicted 1 and the bid price of the above construction company 150 won.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 445,096,50 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

8. Defendant 1, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 12’s computer, etc. fraud, bid obstruction [2013 Go-so-so-so-called 1633];

The Defendants, along with Non-Indicted 1, conspired with Non-Indicted 1 to receive illegal successful bid from Non-Indicted 13 Co. 13, operated by Defendant 12 in the same manner as indicated in the above paragraph (1). As such, Defendant 1 and 16 came to know in advance about June 209, using a pre-distribution program for daily sports facilities (satis, etc.) for the “living sports facilities (satis, etc.)” in the financial commissioner in Gyeongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, the place where the order was given for the “living sports facilities (satis, etc.)”, 15 examples selected by the bidders so that four pre-designated examples may be selected through the bidder’s PC music program, and then calculated the bid price at KRW 461,569,872, and then notified Defendant 18 and Defendant 12 of the bid price at KRW 15,200 through the bid price at KRW 461,569,872, supra.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 461,574,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding by deceptive means. The Defendants, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence from June 2009 to July 2009, followed the process of bidding by making data processed by entering and altering data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, etc., on three occasions as indicated in the annexed crime list (2).

9. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, and 19’s fraud by the use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted 1, and interference with bidding [2013 order 1633];

The Defendants, along with Non-Indicted 1, conspiredd to receive the price from Non-Indicted 14 Construction Company operated by Defendant 19 in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1) by ordering them to receive illegal successful bidding from Non-Indicted 14 Construction Company. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about November 209, 15 examples from the finance officer PC at the Dong-dong, Gyeongdong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the place of order for the “Mansan Small and Medium Enterprise Maintenance Corporation”, using the PC music program for the financial commissioner installed, and notified Defendant 18 of the successful bid price through Non-Indicted 14,35,378, based on this, the bid price was calculated by modifying and manipulating the number of the pre-designated examples of four successful bidders to be selected through the bidder’s PC music program, and then, Defendant 14, 196, the bid price was notified to Defendant 160 won to Defendant 14, 1960.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 444,356,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding by deceptive means. The Defendants, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence from November 2009 to June 201, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, thereby making data processed by making data processed by using the data processing device, such as computer, etc., without authority, on three occasions as indicated in the separate crime list (3). In addition, the Defendants obtained property benefits equivalent to KRW 2,674,123,500 in total, and at the same time, followed the fairness of bidding through deceptive means.

10. Defendant 1, Defendant 16, 17, 18, 19, and 12’s computer lamps-based fraud, bid obstruction [2013 Godan1633]

Defendant 1, 16, and 17 conspired in sequence with Nonindicted Co. 15 to receive the price from Nonindicted Co. 15, operated by Defendant 12 in the same manner as indicated in the above paragraph (1). Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about November 209 about 15 through the pre-sale of the PC music program for the financial commissioner at the time of residing in the Gyeongbuk-do, which is the place where the order was placed, 15 examples from the financial commissioner PC at the time of residing in the Gyeongbuk-do, which is the place where the bidder was ordered to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program, and then the bid price was calculated by altering and manipulating the number of the pre-designated examples to select four successful bidders, and then applying the bid bid price of 468,570,453 won to Nonindicted Co. 15, Defendant 152, and Defendant 152, Defendant 15, and Defendant 125, the bid bid price was notified Defendant 15.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 468,575,500 by making data processed by inputting and altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

11. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 8’s fraud by the use of computers, etc., and interference with bidding [2013 senior group 163] with Nonindicted 1

The Defendants, along with Nonindicted 1, had Nonindicted 16 construction companies operated by Defendant 8 receive illegal bid price from Nonindicted 16 construction companies by the same method as described in the above paragraph (1), and conspired in sequence to receive the price from Nonindicted 16 construction companies. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about January 201 through distribution in advance, using the financial commissioner PC, which is the place where the order was given for the “Fcheon Road Improvement Corporation” was given, 15 examples (including one order) in advance from the financial commissioner PC in Cheongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, which is the place where the order was given for the “Fcheon Road Improvement Corporation”. Defendant 1, 16, the bid price was modified and fabricated to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder PC music program, and the bid price was applied to Nonindicted 130,912,817 won, based on which the bid price was calculated, notified Defendant 18 through the bid price was awarded to Defendant 18, Defendant 16.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 379,913,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

12. Defendants 2, 3, and 6’s computer, etc. fraud, bidding obstruction (2013 senior group 1633);

The Defendants, through the same method as indicated in the above paragraph (1), had the program developer’s name and the Nonindicted Co. 8 operated by Defendant 6 receive illegal successful bid from Nonindicted Co. 8, and conspired in succession to receive the price from Nonindicted Co. 8. Accordingly, Defendant 2 knew 15 preliminary examples (including first order) in the finance officer of the Gyeongjin-gun, the ordering office of “Suljin-gun, Gyeongjin-gun,” which is the place of order for the “Suljin-gun, PC Reinforcement” by means of name and defective distribution around April 2010 and distribution around the name and poor, installed finance companies around April 20, and notified Defendant 3 of the bid price on the basis of the following calculated the bid price at KRW 625,128,592, and the bid price at KRW 625,592, and the bid price at KRW 625,584,685,64, supra.

As a result, the defendants, in collusion with the person in poor name, obtained property benefits equivalent to 625,144,460 won by making data processed by inputting or altering the information without authority in the data processing system, such as computer, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

13. Defendant 1, 16, 17, and 22’s computer lamps-based fraud, bid obstruction (2013 high group 1633)

Defendant 1, 16, and 17 were offered successively from Nonindicted 11 Construction Company, which was operated by Defendant 22, in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1). Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about June 201, about 15 examples (including in order) from the finance officer in Cheongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, the ordering place of the “Yancheoncheon-do Druping Corporation,” using the PC music program for the financial officer in charge of the “Yancheoncheon-do Druping Corporation,” and Defendant 2 was to receive 71,747,122 won on the basis of the bid price calculated by altering and manipulating the number of the pre-designated examples selected by the bidder so that four pre-designated examples would be selected through the bidder’s PC music program, and then notified Defendant 122 of the bid price on the basis of this, Defendant 2 was to receive the bid price in the above 1017.

As a result, Defendants conspired in sequence to acquire property benefits equivalent to KRW 711,751,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering information without authority in computer or other information processing devices, and at the same time, made bidding process by deceptive means. The Defendants, including them, entered and changed information without authority in each data processing device, such as computer, on two occasions from June 201 to March 201, thereby allowing each data processing to obtain property benefits equivalent to KRW 2,450,909,850, in total, and at the same time obtain information processing by means of deceptive means, as shown in the list of crimes (4) in the attached Table between June 201 and March 201.

14. Defendant 1, 16, 17, and 23’s computer, etc. use fraud, bid obstruction [2013 order 1633];

Defendant 1, 16, and 17 conspired with Nonindicted Co. 17 to receive the price from Nonindicted Co. 17, operated by Defendant 23, by the same method as indicated in the above paragraph (1). Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about August 201 through distribution in advance of the price, using the fiscal PC music program for the “Sacheon Tracheon-gun, Non-Party 1’s non-point pollution reduction work,” and find out 15 examples in advance from the financial commissioner of the Cheongju-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Inc., which is the place of order for the “Sacheon Gyeongcheon-si Construction Work”. The number of examples selected by the bidders to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program was modified and fabricated to determine the bid price of 272,285,963 won, and then, based on this, the bid price was sold to Defendant 230 won through the bid bid bid.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 272,286,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding by deceptive means. The Defendants, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence from August 2010 to March 201, in two ways, engaged in data processing by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, etc., as indicated in the annexed crime list (5). In addition, the Defendants engaged in the process of bidding through deceptive means, at the same time, at the same time, by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, etc.

15. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 8, and 24’s fraud by the use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted 1, and interference with bidding [2013 order 1633];

The Defendants, along with Nonindicted 1, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), conspired with Nonindicted 18 Company 18 operated by Defendant 24 to receive illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 18 Company. As such, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about January 201, about 15 examples (including in order) from the financial commissioner in the PC located in the PC located in the PC located in the order of the PC for the PC improvement work, using the PC music program for the PC, and notified Nonindicted 869,303,71 won to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program. Based on this, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 notified Defendant 8 of the bid price through the successful bid, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, 184, the bid price was administered to Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 184, 197.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence to enter and change information into a computer or any other information processing device without authority, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 869,303,750, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

16. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, and 8’s fraud by the use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted 1, and interference with bidding [2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236];

The Defendants, along with Nonindicted 1, had Nonindicted 16 construction companies operated by Defendant 8 receive illegal bid price from Nonindicted 16 construction companies by the same method as indicated in the above paragraph (1), and conspired in sequence to receive the price from Nonindicted 16 construction companies. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, together with Defendant 1, 16 and 17, notified Defendant 16 of the bid price to be awarded at KRW 15 (including the first order) in advance through Defendant 186, Defendant 16, and Defendant 186, based on the following: (a) Nonindicted 1, 16, and 17, who was distributed in advance to early March 201, using the PC music program for the financial commissioner at the time of the “Nancheon Welfare Zone Haaking Corporation”; and (b) the example selected by the bidders to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program; and (c) calculated the bid price at KRW 1,112,635,1555, based on this, Defendant 160 and 18.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 1,112,636,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding by deceptive means.

17. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, 8, and 15’s computer, etc. fraud, bidding obstruction [2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236]

Defendant 1, 16, and 17, as described in the above paragraph (1), conspired in sequence with Nonindicted 19 Construction Company to receive the price from Nonindicted 19 Construction Company, which was operated by Defendant 15, in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1). Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, as well as Defendant 1, 18, using a pre-distribution program for the first time on March 201, using the PC music program for the financial commissioner in Cheongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the place of order for the “large-distance Maintenance and Improvement Corporation”, known Defendant 15 of the bid price in advance, and notified Defendant 13 of the bid price in the above case of the bid price in 1,468,12,128, by modifying and manipulating the bid number selected by the bidders to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program. Based on this, Defendant 1, 25, and 181 of the bid price was notified Defendant 15.

As a result, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, the Defendants obtained property benefits equivalent to KRW 1,468,123,500 by making data processed by inputting and altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and at the same time made the process of bidding through fraudulent means.

18. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 12’s fraud by the use of computers, etc., and interference with bidding [2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236];

The Defendants, along with Nonindicted 1, conspired with Nonindicted 15 Company, to receive the price from Nonindicted 15 Company operated by Defendant 12 by the same method as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) and to receive the price. As such, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, by means of pre-distribution around April 201, and by using the fiscal PC music program for the “scambling and New Road Packing Construction Work” established, he identified 15 examples from the financial commissioner PC in the Gyeong-yeong-gu, Gyeongbuk-gu, the place where the order was given by Nonindicted 15 Company, and notified Defendant 13 of the bid price to be awarded by Nonindicted 15 Company 14, based on the results of the alteration and manipulation of the number of the pre-designated examples to be selected by the bidder 4 in advance through the bidder’s PC music program, the bid price was 353,711,766 won, and then notified Defendant 12 of the bid price was 150 won to Defendant 14 and Defendant 15 2.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 353,712,00 by making data processed by inputting or altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

19. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, and 9’s fraud by the use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted 1, and interference with bidding [2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236];

Defendant 1, 16, and 17, as described in the above paragraph (1), conspired in sequence with Nonindicted 20 construction companies operated by Defendant 9 by the same method as indicated in the above paragraph (1), to receive the price from Nonindicted 20 construction companies. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, as well as Defendant 1, 16, and 17, by using a pre-sale music program for the financial commissioner in the PC for the financial commissioner in Seongbuk-gun, Gyeongsung-gun, the place where the order was given for the “public announcement of the payment of the repair site for the financial commissioner in Geumsung-gun,” discovered 15 examples in advance (including the first order). The examples selected by the bidders so as to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program, and then calculated the bid price of 518,740,192 won by applying the bid rate, and, based on this, notified Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the bid price to Defendant 180 won through the bid bid.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 518,740,600 by making data processed by inputting and altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

20. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, and 10’s fraud by the use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted Party 1, bidding obstruction [2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236];

The Defendants, along with Non-Indicted 1, conspiredd in sequence with Non-Indicted 21 construction companies operated by Defendant 10 in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (1), to receive the payment from Non-Indicted 21 construction companies. As such, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, together with Defendant 1, 17, by means of an advance distribution around April 201, using the PC music program for the financial commissioner installed, and by using the PC music program for “2011 river maintenance work,” known 15 examples in advance from the financial commissioner PC in Yeongdeungpo-cheon-gu, Incheon Special Metropolitan City. In order to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program, the number of the pre-designated examples selected by the bidders would be 78,429,768, followed by applying the bid rate, and then, based on this, notified Defendant 1 and Defendant 18 of the bid price to Defendant 10 and Defendant 15 210, Defendant 2710.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 778,431,500 by making data processed by inputting and altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computer, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

21. Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, and 12’s fraud by the use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted 1, and interference with bidding [2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236];

The Defendants, along with Nonindicted 1, conspired with Nonindicted 13 Company, to receive illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 13 Company operated by Defendant 12 in the same manner as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) and to receive compensation from Nonindicted 13 Company. As such, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, together with Defendant 1, 17, notified Defendant 1 and Defendant 12 of the bid price at KRW 15 (including 15 in order) in advance, using an advance distribution around May 201, and using an order program for the “Wing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing Road Packing Construction Work,” which is the place of order for the “Wing-Sing-Sing-Sing Road Packaging Construction Work,” and notified Defendant 13 and 165 of the bid price in the name of Defendant 160, 167, based on the results of the alteration and manipulation of the number of examples selected by the bidders to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Party 1 in sequence to enter and change information into the data processing system without authority, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 2,685,766,00, and at the same time doing so by fraudulent means.

2. Defendant 1, 16, 17, and 18’s fraud by using computers, etc. with Nonindicted Party 1, and interference with tendering [2013 senior group 163];

Defendant 1, 16, and 17 conspired in sequence with Nonindicted Company 22 to receive the price from Nonindicted Company 22 with the same method as described in the above paragraph (1). As such, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance about June 201, using a pre-sale music program for the financial commissioner installed, and 15 examples (including the first order) from Nonindicted Company 18 to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program. Based on this, Defendant 1, 16, and 17 came to know in advance of the bid price of Nonindicted Company 18, Nonindicted Company 16, and Defendant 264, Defendant 265, and Defendant 186, the bid price was announced to Defendant 18, Defendant 218, and Defendant 264, Defendant 265, and Defendant 218, based on this, the bid price was announced to Defendant 18 through the bid price.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 1 in sequence, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 1,984,653,036 by making data processed by inputting and altering data without authority in the data processing system, such as computers, and thereby harming the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

23. Defendants 1, 16, 17, 18, and 9’s attempted use of computers, etc. with Nonindicted Party 1 [Defendant 2, 16, 1633, 2013, 1236];

The Defendants, along with Nonindicted 1, as described in the foregoing paragraph (1), conspired in sequence with Nonindicted 23 construction companies operated by Defendant 9, to receive the price from Nonindicted 23 construction companies. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, as well as Defendant 1, 17, using the PC music program for early June 201, which is the place of order for the “Non-indicted 1, 15” in the finance officers in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongsung-gun, the place of order for the “Non-indicted 1,389,683,22, based on which the bidder selected four pre-designated examples to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program, included 1,380 won in the bid bid price, and notified Defendant 1 and Defendant 18 of the bid price in advance to Defendant 1 and Defendant 18,360 won in the bid price. However, Defendant 1 and Defendant 18 of the bid price was included in the bid price in the bid price.

As a result, the Defendants attempted to acquire property benefits equivalent to KRW 1,389,684,600 by making the information processed in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 by inputting or altering the information without authority in the data processing system, such as computer, but did not bring about an attempted attempt.

24. Defendant 1, 7, 8, and 5’s computer lamps-based fraud, bid obstruction [2013 order 1633];

The Defendants, in the manner described in the above paragraph (1), intended to receive illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 7 Construction Company operated by Defendant 5 in order to receive compensation from Nonindicted 7 Construction Company. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 7 knew 15 preliminary examples from Nonindicted 5, the financial commissioner in Gyeongcheon-si, Kim Jong-si, which is the place of ordering the improvement project for facilities vulnerable to disaster in Gyeyang-gu, the financial commissioner in order to implement the project for the improvement of facilities vulnerable to disaster in Gyeyang-gu, which was installed in September 2012. Based on the results of the alteration and operation of the number of the pre-designated examples to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program, Defendant 5 notified Defendant 8 of the bid price possible for the bid based on the calculation of KRW 22,652,587, which was based on which the bid price applied the bid price ratio, and Defendant 5 delivered the bid price to Defendant 5, Defendant 5 delivered the bid price to Defendant 2, Defendant 5, and Defendant 5 was bided to Defendant 25 20.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in sequence to enter information into a computer or any other information processing device without authority, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 222,658,00,00, and at the same time doing so by fraudulent means.

25. Defendants 1, 7, 8, and 10’s attempted fraud by the use of computers, etc. (2013 piece 1633)

The Defendants, in the same manner as described in the above 1’s paragraph (a), had Nonindicted 7 construction companies operated by Defendant 5 receive illegal bid from Nonindicted 7 construction companies, and conspired in succession to receive compensation from Nonindicted 7 construction companies. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 7 did not intend to receive the bid price in the name of Defendant 7 by distributing in advance and distributing in September 2012, using the financial PC music program for the financial commissioner, which is the place of ordering the construction of Gincheon National Sports Center. Defendant 1 and 7 did not intend to receive the bid price under the said construction company’s name but failed to receive the bid price in advance, even if Defendant 5 did not intend to receive the bid price in the name of the said construction company, by modifying and manipulating the number of the pre-designated examples to select four pre-designated examples through the bidder’s PC music program. Defendant 8 and 10 did not intend to obtain the bid price in the name of Defendant 7.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in sequence to enter or change information into a computer or other information processing device without authority, and thereby, intended to acquire a substantial pecuniary profit in the successful bid price, but did not bring about such intent and attempted.

26. Violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (2013 high group 1633, 2013 high group 1236) with Nonindicted 24, Defendant 1, 14, and 16

The Defendants, along with Non-Indicted 24, developed and installed the aforesaid financial commissioner music program for the financial commissioner, the aforementioned bidders' music program for the PC, and automatic connection servers, with each other, with intent to distribute the above bidders' music program to the bidder PC. Non-Indicted 24, with the funds necessary for the construction of the illegal successful bid system. Defendant 1 provided with Defendant 16, along with Defendant 14's music program development, with the program distribution through e-mail dispatch, and Defendant 14 decided to take charge of the development of the malicious program and the installation of connection server. Thus, even from February 208 to March 208, 2008, the Defendants from 100 to 208, up to 208, up to 140 to 200 to 208 to 200 to 30 to 20 to 10 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 10 to 30 to 30 to 30 to e-mail servers.

Accordingly, the Defendants distributed malicious programs that could damage, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of an information and communications system in collusion with Nonindicted 24.

27. Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (2013 senior group 1633) with Defendant 14 and 7 Nonindicted 24

The Defendants, along with Non-Indicted 24, attempted to distribute the malicious program as described in the above paragraph 26, and Non-Indicted 24 sought to support funds necessary for the construction of the illegal successful bid system and participate in the illegal successful bid, and the Defendants decided to take charge of the development of the malicious program and the distribution of malicious programs. Accordingly, from August 2008 to November 208, the Defendants sent reference materials related to bidding to many unspecified construction companies located in the e-mail and the e-mail according to Non-Indicted 24’s instruction. As such, as if the Defendants sent reference materials related to bidding even before and after using the e-mail to the unspecified number of construction companies located in the e-mail and the e-mail, the Defendants sent the files on which the PC music program for the above bidder was automatically installed and sent so that the PC music program for the above bidder was installed at 140 p.s.

Accordingly, the Defendants distributed malicious programs that could damage, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of an information and communications system in collusion with Nonindicted 24.

28. Violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (2013 senior group 1633, 2013 senior group 1236) with Nonindicted 1, 16, and 17 Nonindicted 17

The Defendants, together with Nonindicted 1, had Defendant 1 and 16 distribute malicious programs as described in the above paragraph 26; Defendant 1 and 17, the development and management of the illegal successful bid system; Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1 agreed to share the funds necessary therefor; on the other hand, the selection of construction companies to receive illegal successful bidding; and the installation of malicious code. Thus, from October 209 to August 201, Defendant 1, 16, and 17, together with 15 (including 15 order) examples prepared in the financial commissioner from around 209 to August 201, 209; Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 3, an example of designating 2 examples selected by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted Company 4; and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted Company 3, and Nonindicted Company 1, as Nonindicted Company 3, were to develop a music program for the construction of Nonindicted Company 3’s office PC, etc.; and Defendant 1, as if Nonindicted Company 1, installed with the foregoing construction PC PC.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 1 in sequence, thereby spreading malicious programs that could damage, alter, forge, or interfere with the operation of an information and communications system.

29. Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (2013Sang834)

A. Presumed facts

Defendant 1, after consultation with Defendant 7 and Defendant 8, Defendant 1 and 7, Defendant 1 and Defendant 7, Defendant 1 and Defendant 7, on June 2, 2012, developed the malicious code for financial commissioner and the malicious code for bidders necessary to be awarded a successful tender through the national market, and set up and operated each connection server (Internet address 2 omitted), which automatically connects with the above malicious code (Internet address 2 omitted), and Defendant 8 was able to receive a successful bid through the national market by altering and operating two winning numbers in a specific example to be selected among four draw numbers.

B. Joint principal offenders with Defendant 1, 7, and 8 as well as Defendant 9, 10, 4, 5, 11

As a result, Defendant 1 and 7 opened a 3-day file with the above 1-day financial commissioner from 0.0 to 1-6-day (hereinafter referred to as the "Dampic code"), and then opened the 1-day file with the above 2-day financial commissioner from 17:47 on July 4, 2012, Defendant 8 to 3-day office (the 1-day code was omitted) and opened the 3-day file with the above 4-day financial commissioner to put the CD into Nonindicted 34, and then automatically connect the above 1-day connection server (the Internet address 2 omitted) and then installed the 1-day code with the 1-day financial commissioner from 200 to 18-day on the Internet page (the 1-day code was omitted). On the other hand, Defendant 8 and the 1-day code was deleted from 10-day financial commissioner to 3-day address.

Accordingly, the Defendants distributed malicious programs in collusion with Defendant 9, 10, 4, 5, 11.

C. Joint criminal conduct with Defendant 1, 7, 8, 4, and 5

around July 2012, at the above 10 office of Nonindicted Company 21 to be awarded a successful tender by Defendant 8, the Defendants received one CD from Defendant 2, 1 to 3, 6, 1 to 4, 2, 1 to 5, 1 to 6, 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 6, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 2, 1 to 6, 1 to 3, 2, and 5 to 1 to 3, 1 to 6, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 2, and 5 to 1 to 6, 1 to 36, 1 to 36, 1 to 36, 1 to 2, and 2 to 36, 1 to 1 to 36, 1 to 2, and to 36, 2 to 1 to 36, 2, and to 2 to 36.

Accordingly, the Defendants distributed malicious programs in collusion with Defendant 1, 7, 8, 4, and 5.

D. Joint principal offenders with Defendant 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10

After the Defendants received from Defendant 9 and Defendant 10 the ID and password of the above four-day domain account, on July 10, 2012, around 13:26, the Defendants opened the said four-day domains at Nonindicted 37 Construction Company offices as described in the above paragraph (3), and opened the said four-dimensional file to the bidder PC and automatically connect the connection server (Internet address 3 omitted) to the connection server (Internet address 3 omitted) at around that time, and installed the above five-dimensional code at the same time until November 2012, the Defendants installed the 30,42,48,54,68,79,80,80,99, 90, 1010, 2164, 217, 27, 2016, 217, 2016, 217, 216, 217, 216, 217, 217

Accordingly, the Defendants distributed malicious programs in collusion with Defendant 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

E. Joint criminal conduct with Defendant 11’s Defendant 1, 7, and 8

Around August 2012, the Defendant received from Defendant 8 a CD file containing the instant financial commissioner’s malicious code from the Defendant, and had Nonindicted 38 and Nonindicted 39, a financial commissioner, downloaded to her normal inquiry as described in the foregoing paragraph (c) and installed the said download file by automatically accessing the connection server (Internet address 2 omitted) around that time, and automatically accessing the connection server (Internet address 2 omitted) to install the same as the instant financial commissioner’s malicious code.

Accordingly, the Defendant distributed malicious programs in collusion with Defendant 8, 1, and 7.

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants (except for the defendants 21)

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in each protocol of examination of Nonindicted 24

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on the defendant 3, 40, 7, and 41

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A national flag description, printed matter of definition of multiple examples, bid rate by place of order and multiple of performance records, standards for determining successful bidders at the time of a local government tender, analysis table of illegal successful tender works by Seongbuk-gu Office, and information on successful tender;

1. Before the judgment on Defendant 6: Criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment to the judgment related to Defendant 6);

Fraud by use of each computer, etc.: Articles 347-2 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Each bid interference: Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Articles 352, 347-2, and 30 of the Criminal Act

Each malicious program spread (crime 26,27): Article 71 Subparag. 4 and Article 48(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 9119, Jun. 13, 2008); Article 30 of the Criminal Act, comprehensively

Each malicious program spread (No. 28,29): Comprehensively Article 71 subparag. 9 and Article 48(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrence (a punishment provided for in the crime of fraud by use of computers, etc., which is six through twenty-two, and twenty-four, and the crime of fraud by use of computers, etc., and the crime of interference with bidding, on which punishment is heavy);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant 6);

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (the remaining Defendants except the defendants 11, 15, 24);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (defendants 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Probation and community service order (the remaining Defendants except Defendant 11 from among the Defendants who selected the probation period)

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

A. The defendant 1, 2, 12, 17, 22, and 23's assertion of defense counsel

The above defense counsel argues that the crime of fraud by the use of computers, etc. under Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act is established when the information is entered and modified without authority to obtain property benefits, and that the independent act of the information processor and the other party are not established when the information processor intervenes in the disposal between the information processing and profit acquisition. In this case, even if the successful bidder was selected as the successful bidder, the procedure for selecting the successful bidder according to his decision criteria is necessary, so the case does not constitute a case where the owner acquires property benefits directly

However, Article 347-2 (Fraud by Use of Computer, etc.) of the Criminal Act provides that “any person who acquires or causes a third party to obtain pecuniary benefits by inputting false information or improper order or inputting or altering information without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won.” Here, there is a proximate causal relationship between the act of making the data processing by inputting the data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, etc., and the acquisition of pecuniary benefits, and it is not limited that there is a direct causal relationship between the act of making the data processing by inputting the data without authority in the data processing device, such as computer, etc., and the acquisition of pecuniary benefits. In this case, even if there is no reasonable causal relationship between the Defendants’ act of making the data processing by using the data processing method, such as inputting the data without authority installed in the data processing device without authority, and the Defendants’ assertion that there is no reasonable causal relationship between the successful bidder and the act of installing the above program, without authority, is determined as a successful bidder.

B. The defendant 1, 2, 22, and 23's assertion of defense counsel

The above defense counsel asserts to the effect that since the construction work was awarded at a successful bid price higher than the estimated tender price, and it was completed within the budget planned by the ordering person, the benefit of fairness in bidding is not infringed, the act of the defendants cannot be deemed as infringing on the property interest of the ordering person or causing damage.

The crime of fraud by the use of a computer, etc. is established by making the data processed by means of inputting the data without authority into the data processing device, and thereby acquiring the benefits of property, and does not require that the other party actually suffers any property loss. Therefore, the above defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

C. Defendant 16 and 19’s assertion of defense counsel

The above defense counsel asserts that in the crime of fraud using the computer, etc. of this case, the defendants' property benefits acquired by the defendants cannot be viewed as the successful bid price, and that the defendants, etc. would receive the price from the construction company in return for the difference between the successful bid price and the actual construction cost, or the appraised value of property value or the successful bid price.

In this case, the defendants' property benefits acquired by entering information without authority through the establishment and implementation of the malicious program shall not be deemed to be the difference between the successful bid price and the actual construction cost, or the appraised value of the property value of the successful bidder or the price for allowing the successful bidder to be awarded a successful tender. Thus, the above defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

2. The assertion relating to fact-finding;

A. Defendant 12, 23

Each defense counsel of the above Defendants asserted that the above Defendants did not constitute a co-principal because they did not share the functional control of the act or the act of practice to the extent of the co-principal with respect to the entire crime of this case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., Defendant 12 received bid amounts from Defendant 20, 19, and 18, and successfully won the bid amounts, and Defendant 12 paid a considerable amount of money (an amount equivalent to KRW 2.5 million to Defendant 20,000, KRW 5000,000, KRW 170,000,000) to Defendant 19, Defendant 18, and Defendant 12 was working for the fact that the bid amount was awarded by unlawful means (Article 4.46, the investigation records). Defendant 23 delivered bid amounts that can be awarded by Nonindicted 1, and the successful bid amount was delivered, and Defendant 23 paid for the bid amounts equivalent to KRW 6,53,00,00,00,000, KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

B. Defendant 1

(1) As to the facts constituting the crime 4 and 5, Defendant 1 is unable to associate with which construction contract was unlawfully bided, Defendant 22 does not recognize that the contract was unlawfully awarded, and Defendant 1 does not recognize the above facts constituting the crime because the amount is not large or the bid amount is significantly different.

살피건대, 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 판단되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 범죄사실 4, 5항에 기재된 공사건을 낙찰받은 피고인 22는 위 범죄사실을 모두 인정하고 있는 점, 악성프로그램을 개발에 참가한 피고인 13, 16도 위 범죄사실을 모두 인정하고 있는 점, 피고인 22는 부정낙찰의 대가로 피고인 1에게 낙찰금액의 3∽4%를 지급한 점 및 그밖에 검찰이 제출한 앞서 든 증거를 보태어 보면, 위 범죄사실은 그 증명이 있다. 따라서 피고인 1의 변호인의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

⑵ 피고인 1은 범죄사실 13항 범죄일람표 (4) 1호와 14항 범죄일람표(5) 1호에 관하여, 피고인 1이 피고인 16, 17과 함께 개발한 기존의 프로그램은 나라장터의 보안모듈이 OCX(ActiveX)임을 전제로 하는데, 2010. 5.말경 나라장터의 보안모듈이 Java Class로 변경되었고, 그 모안모듈을 대상으로 하는 부정입찰 프로그램을 개발하는데 약 3∽4개월이 소요되어 현실적으로 2010. 6.∽2010. 9. 사이에 기존의 부정입찰 프로그램을 이용하여 낙찰하한가를 알아내는 것은 불가능하기 때문에, 위 범죄사실을 인정하지 않는다고 주장한다.

According to Defendant 1’s written opinion dated May 10, 2013, which the defense counsel stated on May 10, 2013 at the third trial date, Defendant 1 also led to the confession of the above criminal facts and acknowledged them by the prosecution (see, e.g., 5370, 5371 of the investigation record), Defendant 16, 17, 22 of the criminal facts, other Defendants involved in Defendant 16, 17, and 23 of the criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 5370, 5371 of the investigation record), and Defendant 16, 17, and 23 of the criminal facts, who are other Defendants involved in Defendant 13 of the crime list (4) 1 of the criminal facts, are all recognized, and other evidence submitted by the prosecution are proven. Accordingly, this part of the defense counsel’s assertion is without merit.

C. Defendant 10

Defendant 10’s defense counsel asserts that criminal facts 25 did not receive the bid amount that can be awarded by Defendant 8, etc., and that there was no fact that the bid amount was delivered to Defendant 5.

The following circumstances, namely, Defendant 1, 7, and 8, who are the remaining Defendants, acknowledged the above criminal facts, and Defendant 1, who notified Defendant 8 of the scheduled bid price for the test purpose, and consistently stated that Defendant 1 failed to conduct the test (as to the investigation record 3526, 3950, 4354), one of which was the case number, (as to the investigation record, 3526, 3950, 4354), Defendant 8 notified Defendant 5 of the bid price at the time of 25 of the criminal facts in the prosecutor’s office, and stated that Defendant 1 was aware of the successful bid price (as to the investigation record, 3742), Defendant 1 received the amount and delivered it to Defendant 10 (as to the investigation record, 464, 4465 of the investigation record), Defendant 8 and Defendant 10, who were a pro rata counsel, and there is no reason to prove that the above evidence was presented.

D. Defendant 8

Defendant 8’s defense counsel asserts to the effect that, on June 2012, Defendant 1’s premise facts, “A request was made by Defendant 8 to develop a program that may receive illegal successful bid through Ghana,” Defendant 8 was already already developed and thus Defendant 8’s request was not a nature of requesting the development of the malicious program. Defendant 8’s delivery to Defendant 1 and KRW 10 million was merely a loan of Defendant 2’s security deposit for the lease of the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 upon Defendant 1’s request.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court was comprehensively taken into account: (a) Defendant 1 stated to the effect that Defendant 8 first accessed in 2012 at the initial stage of the prosecution investigation (No. 3017, 3018 of the investigation record) but, thereafter, Defendant 1 made a request to Defendant 1 for “a request to develop a program through which Defendant 8 can obtain illegal successful bid” (the investigation record, No. 3642, 3949 of the investigation record) and the development situation of the malicious program at that time, it is not recognized that Defendant 8 requested Defendant 1 to “a request to develop a program through which Defendant 1 can obtain illegal successful bid.”

However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 8 stated that the work development agreement (the investigation record of No. 2013Da834) prepared by Defendant 1 and Defendant 8 appears to be false, and Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 received an investment order for the lease of office or the expenses necessary for the development of offices to develop other than the lease deposit in this court’s newspaper, and Defendant 8 also stated that Defendant 1 was difficult to do so and that Defendant 1 lent KRW 10 million first of all as it is necessary to develop the program and that Defendant 8 loaned KRW 10 million (the investigation record 3738 pages) at Defendant 1’s request on June 2012, it is recognized that Defendant 8 lent KRW 10 million for the development of the malicious program.

(a) Selection of imprisonment;

The head of the country, which is a bid competition system for government-funded construction through the National Integrated Electronic Procurement System of the Public Procurement Service, has been completed in around 2002 through a long-term review, and a significant portion of the total transaction performance of the Public Procurement Service.

○ The purpose of the State’s introduction of the national infrastructure system is to enhance transparency and efficiency in public procurement and promote the development of civil and government electronic commerce. The reliability of the national infrastructure system is expected to require many national budget in order to re-establish a system that is damaged and safe. The national damage caused by the instant crime is very serious.

○ A construction business entity that did not participate in the instant crime during the period of the instant crime is practically deprived of the opportunity to receive the award. Such damage does not appear immediately on criminal facts and evidence, but is obvious that it is a serious social damage.

Therefore, considering the national and social damages caused by the instant crime, the damages caused by the instant crime may be more serious than the amount of profit on property indicated in the crime.

○ The Defendants, who received the illegal successful bid, argued that their actual gains not actually acquired or completed the awarded construction faithfully, do not amount to actual damages caused by the instant crime. However, the Defendants’ sentencing order cannot be accepted on the grounds of the aforementioned reasons.

○ Accordingly, taking into account the gravity of damage caused by the instant crime, only the sentence of imprisonment shall be chosen against all the Defendants.

(b) Criteria for selecting the period of imprisonment and the suspension of execution;

(i)General Criteria

The Defendants’ sentencing on the instant crime should be comprehensively taken into account the degree of participation in the development and installation of malicious programs, the amount of benefits acquired therefrom, the degree of role of those who connected the musical program developer and the construction company (Broer) and the amount of benefits acquired therefrom, and the amount of benefits acquired by the illegal successful bidder in the case of the construction company that received the illegal successful bidder.

Most of the Defendants do not have the same kind of power directly related to the instant crime, and most of the Defendants reflect their mistakes and did not repeat again.

○ As the above reasons for sentencing are stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, all of the conditions for sentencing as shown in the arguments, including the defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Standards for the selection of suspension of execution

The Defendants (Defendant 1, 2, and 18) who seem to have made considerable profits as the principal offender and bromoer of the instant crime do not suspend the execution of imprisonment. However, in the case of bromoer whose degree of involvement is insignificant and who did not make any particular benefit (Defendant 20), the execution of imprisonment is suspended.

In the case of the Defendants who participated in the development of the malicious program, the Defendants (Defendant 7, 16) involved in the installation of malicious program as well as the development of malicious program and the interference with the construction will not suspend the execution of imprisonment. The Defendants (Defendant 17, 13, and 14) who did not so will not delay the execution of imprisonment.

In the case of the Defendants who are engaged in ○ Construction Business and who received the successful tender, if the successful tender price received by the Defendants is within one billion won, or the Defendants did not participate in the establishment of a malicious program, the interference of construction companies, or the delivery of the successful tender price, or if the degree of participation is insignificant (Defendant 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 23, 24), the execution of imprisonment shall be suspended.

○ However, in a case where the winning price is higher than the winning price (Defendant 12), in a case where the Defendants are involved directly or indirectly in the interference of the construction company, the installation of the malicious program, and the financing of the development cost of the malicious program (Defendant 8, 22, 19), the execution of imprisonment is not postponed.

Where the degree of involvement in the establishment of the malicious program is minor (Defendant 11), the execution of imprisonment shall be suspended (in case of Defendant 11, probation and community service shall not be added).

2. Defendants’ individual sentencing

A. Defendant 1

○ Participating in all crimes except for the crimes of 12, 27 among the crimes of this case

○ The development and installation of malicious programs, and the leading of the illegal successful bidder. Regarding the process of establishing malicious programs and the process of illegal successful bidder, the sender shall pass through Defendant 2, Nonindicted 1, etc., or make a direct transaction with the successful bidder.

○ Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 1 received an amount equivalent to the amount of the successful tender from the successful bidder or directly received from the successful bidder (Defendant 1 asserts that the amount is equivalent to KRW 200 million from KRW 170 million to KRW 170 million).

Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 2, 8, 24, and 1 led the instant crime, but Defendant 1’s above assertion was merely a vindication that is difficult to obtain.

▣ 선고형

Seven years of imprisonment;

B. Defendant 2

With respect to the crime 1, 3, 12

○ Participation in the development and installation of malicious programs around 2006, around 2007, around 2010, and in the transmission of bid amounts, other than successful bidders, and the transmission of bid amounts.

○ 7% of the successful bidder's bid price in 2007 shall be received from the successful bidder and the amount equivalent to KRW 44 million among them shall be distributed to Defendant 1 and Defendant 3. around 2010, the amount equivalent to KRW 16 million shall be received from Defendant 3.

Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 2 participated in the instant crime by Defendant 1’s solicitation and delivered the successful bidder the successful bidder the bid price. However, Defendant 2 appears to have planned the development of malicious program and the illegal successful bidder by dividing it into roles with Defendant 1.

▣ 선고형

Three years of imprisonment;

C. Defendant 3

○ Concerning the crime 3, 12

○ Participation in the development and installation of malicious programs to the finance commissioner at around 2007 and around 2010, in the delivery of bid amounts, and participation in the development and installation of malicious programs to the finance commissioner.

○ From the successful bidder around 2007, 6 million won in return for the benefit of 2007. The benefit of 5.6 million won in around 2010.

▣ 선고형

One year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 120 hours of community service;

D. Defendant 4

○ Criminal facts 3, 29.D. Related to

○ involvement in the installation of malicious programs in the PC in around 2007, in addition to successful bidders, and in the transmission of bid amounts. participation in the installation of malicious programs in the PC in around 2012 (18 times).

○ It does not obtain any particular benefit

▣ 선고형

One year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 120 hours of community service;

E. Defendant 5

○ Concerning the crime 3, 24, 29. D.

○ Successful Bidder (successful Bidders KRW 753,637,600) in around 207, and around 2012, a successful bidder (successful Bidders KRW 222,658,00) in around 201. Participation in the installation of malicious programs in the PC around 2012 (18).

○ Defendant 5 donated KRW 20 million to Kimcheon, claiming that the above successful bid was the net profit.

▣ 선고형

Two years of imprisonment, three years of probation, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service;

F. Defendant 6

○ Concerning the crime 3, 12

○ Participation in the delivery of bid price and bid price at around 2007. At around 2010, a successful bidder (successful bidder amount of KRW 625,14,460)

○ Payment of KRW 22 million as the successful tender price to Defendant 3

Pursuant to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, criminal records of this case and criminal records of this case are concurrent crimes, at the same time, the case of judgment and equity.

▣ 선고형

One year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 120 hours of community service;

G. Defendant 7

○ Criminal facts 24, 25, 27, 29.B

○ Participation in the development and distribution of music programs in around 2008. Participation in the development and installation of music programs (CPC 18, 232) around 2012

According to Defendant 7’s assertion, Defendant 7 should take advantage of the amount equivalent to KRW 30 million.

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months;

H. Defendant 8

○ Criminal facts 11, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 29B

○ Participation in the installation of a malicious program from around 2011 to around 2010 at a successful tenderer (379,913,00 won in a successful tenderer, 1,112,636,00 won in a successful tenderer). Participation in the delivery of the successful tenderer, other than the successful tenderer, and the tender price.

○ In around June 2012, Defendant 8 actively engaged in the development of malicious programs (as seen earlier, Defendant 8 loaned KRW 10 million for the development of malicious programs at Defendant 1’s request on or around June 2012) and installation (CPC 18, 232) (CPC 18, 232).

○ Defendant 8 shall pay KRW 31 million to Defendant 20,000 in return for the successful bid, KRW 110,000,000 to Nonindicted 1, and KRW 70,00,00 to Defendant 18, respectively.

▣ 선고형

Four years of imprisonment;

I. Defendant 9

○ Criminal facts 19, 23, 29.C. Related to the crime

○ Participation in the installation of a malicious program in around 2012 (financial commissioner PC 7, construction company PC 27) with a successful bidder (successful bidder 5,18,740,600) around 201, and around 2012

Defendant 9 shall pay to Defendant 18 KRW 33 million, equivalent to 7% of the successful bid price.

▣ 선고형

Two years of imprisonment, three years of probation, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service;

(j) Defendant 10

○ Criminal facts 20, 25, 29.C. Related to the crime

○ Participation in the installation of a malicious program (financial commissioner PC 7 and PC 27) around 2012, in addition to successful bidders (successful bidders 78,431,500) and successful bidders at around 2011, in addition to successful bidders (successful bidders 7,431,500),

○ 피고인 10은 피고인 18에게 낙찰금액의 7% 상당인 5,000만 원을 지급 ▣ 선고형

Two years of imprisonment, three years of probation, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service;

(k) Defendant 11

○ Facts constituting the crime 29.Ma

○ Participation in the establishment of a malicious program (CPC PC 1) around 2012

○ There is no particular benefit

▣ 선고형

Six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution;

(l) Defendant 12

○ Related to the crimes 8, 10, 18, 21

○ Participation in the successful bidder (successful bidder amounting to KRW 3,988,154,00,00, KRW 468,575,500, KRW 353,712,00, KRW 2,658,76,00) around 209 and around 2011

○ Payment of the price for the successful tender to Defendant 20 (250 million won), Defendant 18 (170 million won), and Defendant 19 (such as giving a subcontract, etc.)

▣ 선고형

Three years of imprisonment;

(m) Defendant 13

○ Concerning the crime 1, 3, and 4

○ Participating in the development of malicious programs around 2006, 2007

○ Distribution of profits or monthly payments from Defendant 1

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for one year and six months, two years of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 120 hours of community service;

(n) Defendant 14

○ Concerning criminal facts 26,27

○ Participating in the development of malicious programs in around 2008

○ Distribution of profits or monthly payments from Defendant 1

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for one year and six months, two years of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 120 hours of community service;

(o) Defendant 15

○ Concerning criminal facts 17

○ Successful Bidder(successful Bidders KRW 1,468,123,500)

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for eight months, two years of probation, one year of probation, and 80 hours of community service;

(p) Defendant 16

○ Facts constituting the crime 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 23, 26, 28

○ Participation in the development, management, and installation of malicious programs from around 2006 to around 2011.

○ Acquisition of profits equivalent to KRW 100 million in total from distribution of profits with Defendant 1, etc.

▣ 선고형

Three years of imprisonment;

(q) Defendant 17

○ Concerning the crime 9 to 11, 13 through 23, 28

○ Participating in the development of malicious programs from around 2009 to around 2011.

○ Distribution of profits from Defendant 1 or monthly pay (which shall be equivalent to KRW 300 through 40 million)

▣ 선고형

Two years of imprisonment, three years of probation, one year of probation, and 200 hours of community service;

(r) Defendant 18

○ Facts related to 7 to 11, 16 through 23

○ Successful Bidders (successful Bidders KRW 445,096,50), Successful Bidders (successful Bidders KRW 1,984,653,036), installation of malicious programs, participation in the transmission of bid amounts, and participation in the transmission of bid amounts on around 2011.

○ acquired a part of the money delivered by Defendant 8 as the successful bidder (at least 1% of the successful bidder’s bid price) and acquired a certain portion of the bid price from another successful bidder as the profit.

▣ 선고형

Four years of imprisonment;

(s) Defendant 19

○ Related to the crimes 8, 9, 10, 18

○ Participating in the delivery of successful bidders (successful bidders amounting to KRW 2,674,123,500), other than the construction company and bid amount from around 2009 to 2011.

○ Defendant 19 shall benefit by way of re-subcontracting the construction work for which Defendant 12 was awarded an illegal successful bid (No. 4551, 4552 of investigation records)

○ Defendant 19 shall contribute to a social welfare organization the amount of KRW 70 million, which is not less than KRW 65 million, claiming that the instant crime is net profit.

▣ 선고형

Three years of imprisonment;

(t) Defendant 20

○ Concerning the crime 8, 11

○ Participation in the delivery of bid price and the interference of successful bidder

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for eight months, two years of probation, one year of probation, and 80 hours of community service;

(u) Defendant 22

○ Related to the crimes 4, 5, 6, 13

○ Participation in the successful bidder around 2011 on 2010.208 (the successful bidder’s amount of KRW 166,093,00,00, KRW 152,091,50, KRW 2,436,496,980, KRW 2,450,90, KRW 2,450,90,850)

○ Defendant 22 installs a malicious program on the financial commissioner’s PC at Defendant 1’s request (as it is related to installing a malicious program to the financial commissioner of the Dobong-gun Office (investigative Records 4361, 4475, 4784, 4784, 4973, 4974, 5463 pages)

Defendant 22 paid KRW 20 million to Defendant 1 on or around 2006. Although there is a dispute over the nature of the money, Defendant 22 was recognized to have been offered to participate in an illegal successful bid from around that time by Defendant 1 (Investigation Records 4475, 4969).

○ 피고인 1에게 낙찰금액의 3∽4%를 대가로 지급

Defendant 22 decided to contribute 200 million won to the Permanent Market Council, claiming that this case’s net profit is the net profit.

▣ 선고형

Three years of imprisonment;

(v) Defendant 23

○ Concerning the crime 14

○ Successful Bidder(successful Bidder 900,102,500)

○ Payment of 6% of the successful tender price and 53 million won in total to Nonindicted 1

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for eight months, two years of probation, one year of probation, and 80 hours of community service;

(w) Defendant 24

○ Facts constituting the crime 15

Successful bidders (successful bidders of KRW 869,303,750)

▣ 선고형

Imprisonment for eight months, two years of probation, one year of probation, and 80 hours of community service;

The Defendants, in the same manner as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime, received illegal successful bid from Nonindicted 42 construction companies operated by Defendant 21, and conspired in succession to receive compensation from Nonindicted 42 construction companies. Accordingly, Defendant 1, 16, and 13 came to know 15 preliminary examples (including first order) from the finance officer PC in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, the ordering office of “○○ access road repair and its surrounding maintenance work” using the music program for the financial commissioner installed in January 2007, and then came to know 15 preliminary examples (including first order) from the financial commissioner PC of Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, which is the ordering office of “○○ access road repair and its surrounding maintenance work”. The examples of the bidders’ choice to select four preliminary examples through the bidder’s PC music program were modified and fabricated to calculate the bid price of KRW 138,722,103, based on this, Defendant 21 notified Defendant 21 of the bid price at KRW 380,7197.27.

2. Determination

A. The assertion

Defendant 21 asserted that, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2 on February 28, 2006, the Seongbuk-gu Office’s “Feind Sewage Structure Repair Works” was an illegal successful bidder, and on January 2007, the Seongbuk-gu Office’s “○○○ Access Road Repair Works” did not receive an illegal successful bidder. In addition, Defendant 1 did not recognize the facts charged.

B. Determination

Defendant 16 and 13 acknowledged the above facts charged in this court. Defendant 13 stated in the prosecutorial office that Defendant 21 was unlawfully awarded the order of Seongbuk-gu Office (Investigation Record 4400, 5634 pages).

However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) Defendant 13 knew that Nonindicted 42 construction companies were illegally selected at the Defendant Examination at this Court; (ii) Defendant 13 and Defendant 16 stated that they were not only two persons; (iii) the number of illegal successful bidders known to Defendant 13 and Defendant 16, in charge of Defendant 2 and Defendant 16, appears to be the number of such illegal successful bidders; and (iv) Defendant 1 stated that Nonindicted 42 construction companies, which Defendant 21 operated by the prosecution, were not the same for Nonindicted 42 construction companies to have been illegally selected; and (v) Defendant 2 did not inform Defendant 42 of the fact that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that it was not the same for Defendant 4 to have been illegally selected; and (v) Defendant 2 did not know that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that it was an unlawful successful tender.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of the crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Hong Pung-chul

Note 1) The criminal facts No. 2 were determined as not guilty below. The criminal facts number omitted 2 times for the unity of the charge and stated 3 times from the charge.

Note 2) The facts charged state that “Defendant 1 is requested by Defendant 8 to develop a program through which he may receive illegal successful bid from Defendant 8,” but the following is deleted since the aforementioned part is not recognized as determined by “Defendant 8” as to the Defendants’ assertion.

Note 3) The investigation records refer to the investigation records of heading 2013 Highest 1633, unless otherwise specified.