입찰방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A and C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,00.
1. The R Import Rights (which is not a general duty of 630% but a tariff concession of 40%) bid for a public auction (hereinafter “public auction bid”) enforced by Q (hereinafter “ Q”) to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is limited to the number of biddings per company and the quantity of bidding.
However, in each public auction of this case, the Defendants mobilized the nominal lending company, thereby avoiding the above restrictions on the bidding and being awarded a large amount of RR import rights.
Such an act constitutes a crime of interference with bidding by impairing the fairness of bidding by enhancing the probability of winning the successful bid by the Defendants and lowering the probability of winning the successful bid by general bidders.
The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Defendants’ assertion
A. 1) The public auction of this case takes the method of selecting the successful bidder in order of the highest bid price until the total quantity of the successful bid is added to the total quantity of the public auction (no restriction on the upper limit of the successful bid price). Even if the Defendants comply with multiple times, it cannot be awarded any higher bid if there is any higher bid than the successful bid, and thus, the bid bid cannot be awarded more than once, and there is no need to mobilize the nominal lender.
On the other hand, even in the case of winning a contract, there is a risk of compelling the performance of import, etc. (in the event that the import of the successful bid quantity is not performed within a certain period, the import deposit shall be reduced, and the eligibility to participate in the public auction shall be restricted), and it is possible to secure only the appropriate quantity because it does not guarantee the profit, so
In full view of such circumstances, the mere mobilization of the nominal lending company does not undermine the fairness of the instant public auction bidding even if the white lending company complies with the instant public auction bidding.
2) The Defendants did not prove that they mobilized the nominal lending company without any reasonable doubt.
f. Doz.