건설산업기본법위반등
The judgment below
The parts of the defendant A, B, D, and E shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of two years and six months, Defendant B, and .
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence (for defendant A: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment; 4 years of probation; 320 hours of community service work; 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of probation; 2 years of community service; 240 hours of imprisonment; 1 year of probation; 2 years of probation; 2 years of probation; 30 hours of fine; 30 million won in case of defendant E; 50 million won in case of defendant F Co., Ltd. and G Co., Ltd.; 1 year and 6 months of probation; 2 years of probation) that the court below sentenced the defendants is too unreasonable.
2. As in the instant case, in a case where collusion was performed in a government-funded construction project, the fact that the ripple effect indirectly affects the majority of the people is disadvantageous.
However, the circumstance leading to the collusion in this case seems to have been the cause of preventing blood-related competition, and there are circumstances where the defendants were awarded a bid price less than the construction cost calculated prior to the bid in this case.
Defendant
B and D led the practice of the instant collusion, and at the time of the instant collusion, Defendant E received a report from the representative director of the company as the representative director, and approved the collusion. Defendant A received the report from Defendant B as the major shareholder and the actual operator of G Co., Ltd. and approved the instant collusion.
Taking into account the difference in the degree of the Defendants’ participation in such collusion in sentencing.
Defendant
Although the use of corporate funds with a large number of A and H for personal purposes is an act detrimental to the company, such an act is not less than a liability, the above Defendants recognized liability for the portion where the company funds were used in an abnormal manner.
The above Defendants took measures to recover damage by fully repaying the amount of damage caused by occupational embezzlement.
In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the motive and background of the Defendants’ crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the benefits obtained from the collusion in this case, the management situation of the Defendant Company, and the size of the company, the lower court sentenced the Defendants A, B, D, and E.