1. The interference with tendering is a dangerous crime established when the fairness of tendering is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or other means, and thus, the unfairness of the outcome is not practically necessary.

Here, “act detrimental to fair competition” means an act that causes a situation that is likely to interfere with fair competition, and includes not only an act that unfairly affects reasonable price formation but also an act that interferes with fair competition.

In addition, even if collusion is conducted only between some of the bidding participants, it constitutes a interference with bidding as long as it is evaluated that it would prejudice the fairness of bidding.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8498 Decided June 9, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2581 Decided December 22, 2006, etc.). In addition, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and its probative value based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). 2. The court below, on the grounds as stated in its decision, found the defendant guilty of all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance, and rejected the defendant's assertion on the following grounds: (a) under the title of "decision on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel", the part concerning the obstruction of tender among the above facts constituting the crime: (b) it may be recognized that the defendant has interfered with bidding by pretending competition; and (c) it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant has instigated the defendant to conceal the evidence concerning the offering of bribe and the crime of obstruction of tender among the above facts

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is a fact-finding purport that contests the fact-finding of the lower court.