2017Gohap811 A. Violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

B. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. (a) A stock company;

2. (a) B

3. (a) C

4. A. D. Stock company

5. (a) E Company;

6. (a) F Co., Ltd.

7. (a) A. G.

8. A. H Co., Ltd.

9. (a) I Stock Company;

10. (a) J Co., Ltd.

11. b.K

12.(b) L;

13. b. M

14.b. N

b)0.0

16. b. P

17.b. Q.

b)R

19.b. S

20.b. T:

21. U.S.

2.(b) V

23.b)W;

24.b. X

25.b. Y

26.(b)Z;

27.b. AA

28. b. AB

29.b. AC

30.(b) AD

Lee Jong-sik (Court) and Kim Tae-tae (Court)

For Defendant A, K, and L:

Law Firm Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Kang Jae-soo, Bai, Law Firm

○ For Defendant B and M

Law Firm Yang Hun, Attorney Oi-hu

○ For Defendant C and N

Attorney Stabili-ho, Nos.

0 For Defendant D & 0

Law Firm (LLC), Kim Jae-hun, Attorneys Park Jae-hun, and the name of the condition

To this end, the Defendant EF, P3, and Q

Attorney Temporary rules, Kim Jong-hoon, LLC

○ For Defendant F Co., Ltd., R and S:

Law Firm Beneficiary, Attorney Lee Chang-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellee

For Defendant G:

Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-ho et al.

○ Defendant H Co., Ltd., V, and W

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee In-ok and Domins

For this defendant corporation, Y

Law Firm Han-won, Attorneys Yoon Sang-won

○ For Defendant J Co., Ltd. and Z:

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Lee Dong-ho

For Defendant T or U:

Law Firm Beneficiary, Attorneys Lee Jae-won, and Gangwon-doe

○ For Defendant X:

Law Firm Jin-Law, Attorneys Permitted, Kim Jong-Gyeong

For Defendant AA and AB

Law Firm LLC, Attorney White-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

○ For Defendant AC

Law Firm Ui-Myeon, Attorney Kim Dong-hun

○ For Defendant AD

Law Firm Mad Co., Ltd., Attorney Mank-sub

November 14, 2017

Defendant A corporation, C corporation, D corporation, and E corporation are punished by a fine of KRW 160 million; KRW 140 million; KRW 100 million; KRW 90 million; KRW 20 million; KRW 30 million; KRW 30 million; Defendant F corporation, H corporation, and I corporation are punished by a fine of KRW 20 million; KRW 35 million; KRW 30 million; Defendant M and A corporation are punished by a fine of KRW 25 million; KRW 25 million; KRW 35 million; KRW 25 million; Defendant L; P, R, V, X, Z; and KRW 5 million; and each fine of KRW 15 million; Defendant T and B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million; and KRW 5 million; and

Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AB, AB, AC, and AD respectively fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be detained in the Nowon-gu for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Criminal facts

○ Criminal Power

Defendant K was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry at the Seoul Central District Court on February 6, 2014, and the said judgment was finalized on February 14, 2014. On February 12, 2015, Defendant K was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence on October 24, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2015.

○ Criminal facts

1. Status and duties of the Defendants

A. The Defendants of the corporation

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, E, F, G. H. H., I, J Co., Ltd. (the above entry is the net value of the AE Corporation) and AF Co., Ltd, AG Co., Ltd, AG Co., Ltd, and AH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company in the name of the company”), are omitted, and 13 Co., Ltd. are companies engaged in the construction business as defined in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

B. Personal Defendants

1) A’s affiliation

Defendant K, from January 2004 to December 2012, 201, was in charge of A’s main business, and from January 201 to December 2013, Defendant K was in charge of the bidding of domestic public construction, such as “AE Construction Work Tender” (hereinafter referred to as “main bidding”) ordered by AI corporation.

Defendant L worked as the head of the business team in A, the main business team from July 2007 to June 2010, and from July 2010 to January 2014, Defendant L worked as the head of the business planning team belonging to the main business center, and was in charge of the domestic public construction bid affairs, such as this bid affairs.

2) Affiliation B

Defendant M worked as the Deputy Director of Work Division B from June 2004 to December 30, 2008, and from December 31, 2008 to December 2013, 2008, Defendant M performed as the Full Director of Public Business Team, and controlled and takes charge of the bid affairs in Korea, including the bid affairs.

3) Affiliation C

Defendant N served as the head of the department in charge of the business of C from around December 1998 to November 2008, and as the officer in charge of the business from around December 2008 to November 201, Defendant N took charge of the bid of the domestic public construction project, such as the bid of this case.

4) D Affiliation D

From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010, Defendant 0 was the head of D's business team, and Defendant 0 was the head of D's business team from November 1, 201 to December 31, 201, and Defendant 0 was the head of the domestic business headquarters in charge of the domestic business headquarters from November 1, 201 to December 31, 201, taking overall charge of the domestic and foreign bid affairs, including the main bid affairs.

(v) E;

Defendant P worked as the team leader of the civil engineering business team from August 2004 to December 2009, and as the team leader of the civil engineering business team from January 1, 2010 to February 6, 2017, Defendant P took overall charge of domestic and foreign bid affairs, such as the bidding of this case.

Defendant Q served from January 201 to December 201, 201; from September 201, to December 2012, 201, as the vice head of the business team affiliated with E’s business team prior to the civil engineering period from around September 201 to December 2013, Defendant Q overall control over the domestic and foreign bid affairs, including the instant bid affairs.

6) F.m. F

Defendant R worked as the head of F’s civil engineering management headquarters from June 2006 to November 201, 2013, and performed overall control over the domestic and foreign bid affairs such as this bid.

Defendant S, from October 16, 2009 to May 201, entrusted F with the promotion of the head of the domestic business team (the head of the division) of F’s domestic business team, served as the head of the domestic business team from May 2014, and was in charge of the bid of the domestic public corporation, such as this bid.

7) G Affiliation

From August 16, 2010 to July 2015, Defendant T held office as an officer in charge of the domestic headquarters of G, and took overall charge of the bid affairs of the domestic public corporation.

Defendant U served from January 2009 to December 201, 2014 as the head of the public business team belonging to G’s public business office, and was in charge of the bid of the domestic public project, such as this bid.

8) H’s affiliation

Defendant V served as the head of H’s business headquarters from March 2012 to February 2012, 2012 as the head of the Civil Work Headquarters, and was in charge of the bidding of this case and other domestic public works.

Defendant W was the head of H’s business division from the end of July 2009 to June 201, 2010, to the officer in charge of the business division from July 30, 2010 to July 30, 2013, and was in charge of the inspection of the performance of the domestic public construction, such as the instant bid.

(ix) affiliated I.

Defendant X worked as the head of the I’s civil engineering project headquarters from September 2009 to July 2010, and the head of the domestic business headquarters from August 2010 to December 2010, Defendant X took overall control of the bid affairs of the domestic public construction project, including the bid affairs.

Defendant Y served as the head of I’s domestic business team (person in charge of receipt of orders) from March 2008 to February 2009, and as the officer in charge of the domestic business team from March 2009 to the end of end of February 2014, Defendant Y was in charge of the bidding of this case and other domestic public projects.

10) J-affiliated

Defendant Z served from around 2009 to 2012 as the Director General in charge of the Republic of Korea of J, and was in charge of the bidding of plant public works such as this bid.

11) AF-affiliated

Defendant A served from January 2009 to November 201, 201 as the head of the domestic headquarters of AF, and was in charge of bidding for domestic plant public works, such as this bid.

From July 2008 to June 201, Defendant AB served as an officer in charge of domestic business of AF's domestic headquarters from around July 2008, and was in charge of bidding for domestic plant public construction such as this bid.

12) AG affiliation

From February 21, 2006 to September 13, 2010, Defendant AC served as the head of the domestic business team during the period from September 14, 2010 to June 20, 201, as the head of the domestic business team during the period from June 21, 201, and as the head of the domestic business team during the period from June 21, 201 to July 14, 2013, and was in charge of the bidding of domestic plant public works, such as this bid.

13) AH affiliation

Defendant D worked as the head of AH Management Planning Headquarters from March 2009 to March 1, 2010, and as the head of AH Management Planning Headquarters (pre-registered officer), from March 2, 2010 to June 201, 201, the head of AH General General Office (general director), from July 2, 2010 to January 201, 201, and the head of the Water Environment Management Headquarters, from February 201 to February 201, and was in charge of the bid of domestic plant public construction, such as this bid.

2. Basic facts

A. The summary LNG (Liqufied Lat) of the instant bid project refers to the liquefied gas by compressing, cooling, and cooling natural gas (CH4), whose principal ingredient is Miquation (CH4). The substance is non-fluorous and transparent liquid, with little pollution, high heat, and mainly being used as urban gas. The AI Corporation: (a) imported LNG from the place of origin in a foreign country and placed it in AE again; and (b) promoted and ordered the AE construction to supply gas to power plants and national urban gas companies, which are large consumers.

(b) Bidding methods;

1) A [the Corporation, after 2005, decided the successful bidder in the AE construction project by the method of the lowest successful bidder system. The lowest successful bidder system from January 2001 to January 1, 2001, in the case of a construction project with an estimated price of at least 100 billion won, "pre-qualification examination for participation in the tender" ("PP Q Q examination") was extended from May 2006 to construction with an estimated price of at least 30 billion won.

2) The current minimum successful bidder system is divided into several categories of construction works in most cases (hereinafter referred to as “official categories”) and then the successful bidder shall be determined by excluding bidders who are excessively low-prices or inappropriate for low-prices through the adequacy review of the tender amount for each type of work in order to restrict excessive low-prices competition. The procedures are as set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1)

A person shall be appointed.

3) P Q Q examination is a process of pre-examination as to whether a bidder is eligible to participate in competitive bidding procedures conducted by an agency awarding an order. P Q Q examination is possible only to select a bidder who has passed the examination after examining whether the person is qualified to participate in the competitive bidding procedures conducted by an agency awarding an order, such as the list 2 below.

Table 2

A person shall be appointed.

(c) The progress of the present bid and the present status of the present bid for the entire period of the present case as a result of the bid are as follows:

Table 3

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Bidding - The 13 main agreements and participation in tendering.

A. The 13 companies involved in the agreement of this case 13 companies and the 13 companies involved in the bidding from May 2005 to December 2, 2012, participating in the bidding of this case ordered by AI 12 companies, setting a successful bidder and a bid bid rate by each construction work in advance, and agreed to allocate construction volume to other construction companies included in the bid bid bid agreement, and participating in the bidding of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant collaborative act”). The instant collaborative act was conducted as follows: a group that determines the scheduled bid price of the 3 AE construction works and a group that determines the scheduled bid price of the 3 companies and the bid price and contract progress according to the decision.

B. The Agreement of 2005, 2006

1) In 2005, Defendant D, E, C, A, and AF (hereinafter referred to as “the first six companies”) in charge of the operation of six companies, including Defendant D, E, C, A, A, and AF (hereinafter referred to as “six companies first agreed”) prior to the tender of the AJ bid (hereinafter referred to as “AJ tender”), the head of the department-level staff (the head of the AX, CN, AF AF A, AF AZ, DO, E, and E-registered employees) determined that four biddings, such as AJ bid, AK tender, AL tender, AM tender, and AM tender, will be successful as described in the table 4 below.

Table 4

A person shall be appointed.

2) After the Defendant D, which had been a prospective contractor for the successful tender, ordered the project as agreed upon by the AJ tender, there was a need to include Defendant F and B in the instant collaborative act in addition to the initial 6 companies as a consequence of the partial modification of the bid system. Unlike the previous bid, the AK tender changed the bid system so as to make it difficult for all participating companies to participate in the tender to obtain the successful bid if they do not participate in the pre-determined bid decision. In other words, in the existing bid, even if 1-2 biddings are low, the low-price bidder was a large number of the types of work with low-prices, but the first 6 companies participating in the 205-year agreement, including Defendant F and B, the first 200-year agreement, including the head of the 205 AK tender department, and the first 20-year agreement, including the head of the 1-206 AF government tender department, the 20-year 20-year AF government tender department, and the 200-year company.

Table 5

A person shall be appointed.

(c) the agreement in 2007.

1) In 2005 and 2006, the order for the last AO bidding, which is the subject of the 2006 agreement, was delayed compared to the scheduled 2007 agreement. The 8 companies in charge of the business of the above 8 companies, through prior meetings, have decided four biddings including NN bidding, AP bidding, A Q Q and BD bidding (BD bidding is not actually ordered, and the accurate construction name is not known), and have reached an agreement (However, BD bidding was not implemented as agreed upon because it did not actually place an order).

Table 6

A person shall be appointed.

2) Examining the contents agreed upon by the above 8 companies at the time, the agreement in 2005 and 2006 and the order of acceptance is the same as indicated in the following table 7.

Table 7

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

* Ison board: there is a classification of orders, and it is no classification of orders by consensus;

(d) the agreement in 2009;

1) 8 companies participating in the agreement in 2007 came to know that BE construction work will be ordered through AI construction order plan, etc. Accordingly, around October through November 11, 2009 and around November 11, 2009, the 8 companies in charge of the business of the above 8 companies (F S head treatment, A L department, CF department, AF department, AF AG department, AF AF AG department, BM department, and BH department) were a meeting to discuss joint countermeasures against the relevant bidding. At the time, a meeting was held by reflecting the fact that BD bid was not ordered and AG, which was determined as a successful bidder, was not awarded a successful bid. The details of the prior agreement are as follows.

Table 8

A person shall be appointed.

2) As the AR tender was ordered at the end of 2009, five new participants were added to the above 8 companies, including Defendant I, H, J, G, and AH, and 13 employees in charge of the operations of the 13 companies (F S chief treatment, AL chief, CF department, CF department, I BI department, AG AY department, HB department, AF BJ department, AF BK department, JK department, DO department, AH BM department, BM department, G department, and E-H department through prior meetings. At the time, Defendant A and AG decided on the scheduled bid price of the construction project compared to other business entities, and agreed on the scheduled bid price of the construction project. The agreement was made between Defendant A and AG as a result of the final agreement that did not receive the 2007 agreement.

Table 9)

A person shall be appointed.

E. The outline of the collaborative act of this case is as listed below, if it is scriptive:

Table 10)

A person shall be appointed.

4. Specific facts of crime;

A. Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (for the Defendants of the legal entity)

around January 2010, Defendants, AF, AG, and AH had 13 business chiefs (A L, B M, CF department, DF department, EM department, FH department, G U, BJ department, IB department, JB department, JB department, JF department, AF BG department, AF BG department, AG department, AGY department, AH BY department, AH BY department, AFG department, AH BY department, AH BL department) joint supply and demand (50%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 20%, 15%, 20%, 13, and 15%, from the date of the bid bid to the date of the bid bid offer to the 125th tender tender offer to the 13rd tender offer to the 125th tender offer to the 13rd tender offer to the 125th tender offer.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the employees of the Defendants, the Minister of Business (A L, B M, CF, D0, the head of D0, the head of EBH, the head of FST, the head of GU, the head of H BJ, the Minister of J BG, the head of JF BG, the head of AG, AG AY, the head of AH BL, the head of AH BL, and the officers and employees of each company agreed in advance with other companies in connection with the Defendants’ duties in the construction tender in advance, and they conducted unfair collaborative acts (However, Defendant B and F participated in the collusion of this case in the attached list of crimes Nos. 2, J, 8 through 9 of the attached list of crimes).

B. Personal Defendants

1) Defendant K and L (attached Form 10, 11, 12)

Defendant L, around January 2010, at the office of Defendant K located in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul, assigned “A” to the representative company of 50% (F 20%), D (20%) and I (10%) of the share in the AR section through a meeting of the chief of the 13 business groups, such as the above 3. D., and Defendant K instructed Defendant K to implement collusion after receiving a report from Defendant L.

On February 7, 2012, Defendant L bid for the bid rate and bid price offered by the person in charge of the above company so that E may receive a successful bid for the AT Section allocated as agreed upon by the above group at the above A Office on February 7, 2012, and caused the above company to receive the successful bid for the pertinent Section. From October 19, 2010 to December 18, 2012, Defendant L bided the bid rate and bid price received from the scheduled winner of the successful bid as agreed upon by the above group three times as shown in attached Table 10, 11, and 12, such as the list of crimes No. 10, 11, and 12.

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

2) Defendant R and S (attached Table 10, 11, 12)

Defendant S reported to the effect that, around January 2010, at the F’s Defendant R office, as set forth in the foregoing 3. D., Defendant S: (a) through a meeting of the 13 business chiefs of the instant 13 companies, “F distributed AR bidding to 20% (the representative: 50%) of the share of the D(20%) and the D(20%) and I(10%), Defendant R instructed Defendant S to implement collusion after receiving a report from Defendant S..

Defendant S bid at the above F Office on February 7, 2012 to obtain a successful bid for the AT Section allocated by E, as agreed upon by the above F Office, based on the information about the bid rate and bid price offered by the person in charge of the above F Office, and let the above company win the pertinent construction section. From October 19, 2010 to December 18, 2012, Defendant S bid the bid rate and bid price received from the scheduled winner of the bid as agreed upon by the above F Office three times as shown in attached Table 10, 11, and 12, as stated in attached Table 10, 11, and 12.

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

3) Defendant (Attached Nos. 10, 11, and 12) (Attached Crime List No. 10, 12)

On January 14, 2010, the Defendant agreed to assign CR bid to 20% of its equity interest through a meeting with working-level officers, such as J and AG, as set forth in paragraph (d) of the above 3.D., and agreed to bid for construction sections other than the above construction sections (A(50%).

On October 19, 2010, the Defendant, in accordance with the foregoing agreement, bided at the bid rate and bid price offered by the person in charge of the above company so that AG, which constitutes a joint supply and demand company at its own office, may receive a successful bid for BN sections allocated as agreed upon at the above group, and made the said company receive the successful bid for the relevant construction section from October 19, 2010 to December 18, 2012, as stated in attached Table 10, 11, and 12, as stated in attached Table 10, 11, and 12, the bid price and bid price received from the scheduled contractor of the successful bid as agreed at the above group three times.

As a result, the defendant, in order to obtain unfair profits in bidding of construction works or to interfere with fair price determination, tender at a price calculated in advance between bidders and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

4) Defendant X and Y (attached Form No. 10, 11)

Defendant Y, around January 2010, at Defendant X office of Defendant X, reported to the effect that “this AR bid was allocated to 10% of its equity interest through a 13-party business groups’ meetings, as seen in the above 3-D, and Defendant X instructed Defendant X to undertake collusion after receiving a report from Defendant Y.” The Defendant X instructed Defendant X to implement collusion.

Defendant Y bid at the above I office on February 7, 2012, based on the information about the bid rate and bid price offered by the person in charge of the above I office so that E can be awarded a successful bid for the AT Section allocated as agreed by the above I office, and the above E was awarded a successful bid for the pertinent Section. From October 19, 2010 to February 7, 2012, Defendant Y bid at the price calculated in advance among bidders as agreed by the above I office twice, as shown in the No. 10 and paragraph (11) of the attached Table of Crimes No. 10.

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

5) Defendant AC (attached Table 10, 11, 12)

On January 14, 2010, the Defendant explained to the effect that “AG was allocated a 50% share of the AS bid to the representative company [the 20%, AF (20%), and J (10%) through a meeting with the working-level officers, such as J and AG, from AY (Death on March 9, 2017) in the Standing Office, and that “AG agreed to bid the construction section other than the said construction section.”

On October 19, 2010, the Defendant bid for the AS Corporation agreed to receive a contract from C, AF, and J using bid-related documents at his/her office. From that time to December 18, 2012, the Defendant bid for the bid at the price calculated in advance among bidders as agreed in attached Table Nos. 10, 11, and 12 by December 18, 2012.

As a result, the defendant tenders at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interferes with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

6) Defendant N (Attached Crime List No. 10)

On January 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) received from the Defendant’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BO, a meeting with working-level officers, such as J and AG, etc., to the effect that “C has allocated AS bid to 20% of its equity (the representative: 50%) and agreed to bid for the Section other than the said Section, and that “C has agreed to implement collusion.”

Accordingly, on October 19, 2010, the Defendant issued a tender-related document to AG, the representative of the business team, at the time of the business operation team at its office, and AG was awarded the bid for the said construction section by using bid-related documents received from C, AF, and J.

As a result, the defendant tenders at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interferes with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

7) Defendant A and AB (attached Form No. 10)

On January 14, 2010, Defendant AB made a report to Defendant AB on the purport that, through meetings with working-level officers such as J and AG, Defendant AB distributed AS bidding to 20% (representative company: AG (50%) of the share of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20th share of the 20th share of the 3rd Company, Defendant AB agreed to bid for tools other than the 20% of the 3rd Company, and Defendant A made a public offering after receiving a report from Defendant AB as above.

On October 19, 2010, Defendant AB issued documents related to tendering to AG, a representative of AS bidding at its office and received the bid of the said section by using bid documents received from C, AF, and J.

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

8) Defendant Z (attached Table 10, paragraph 11)

On January 14, 2010, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office of the J, received a report from BK and Q, the head of the business team, to the effect that “The J, through a conference with the working-level officers, such as J and AG, assigned AS bidding to S 10% (the representative: 50%) of the share, and that “The Section other than the above Section AG (50%) was agreed to bid for the bid.”

Accordingly, on October 19, 2010, the Defendant issued bid-related documents to AG, the representative of the business team at the time, and bid-related documents from J, AF, and J used bid-related documents, and bid-related documents to be awarded by the bidders, such as J and AG, and bid price was made at the price calculated in advance among bidders, as agreed in attached Table Nos. 10 and 11, from October 19, 2010 to February 7, 2012.

As a result, the defendant, in order to obtain unfair profits in bidding of construction works or to interfere with fair price determination, tender at a price calculated in advance between bidders and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

9) Defendant P and Q (attached Form 10, 11, and 12)

Defendant Q, at the Defendant P office around January 2010, through a meeting of the 13 business chiefs of this case, as described in the above 3. D., Defendant Q, a representative of the 60% share of the AT tender.

[SBBS: AH (40%) and agreed on a bid for any construction section other than the above construction section. Defendant P, as above, instructed Defendant Q to implement collusion after receiving a report from Defendant Q.

As a result, on October 19, 2010, the Defendants bid the bid rate and bid price offered by the person in charge of the above company so that AG, which constitutes a joint supply and demand company at its own office, can be awarded a successful bid for BN sections allocated as agreed at the above group, based on the information, and let the said company award the relevant construction section. From October 19, 2010 to December 18, 2012, the Defendants bid at a price calculated in advance among bidders as agreed upon at the above group three times, as shown in attached Table 10, 11, and 12, as agreed in attached Table 10, 11, and 12.

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

10) Defendant AD (attached Table 10, 11)

On January 14, 2010, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office of AH, received a report from the head of BL division to the effect that “AH allocated AT bidding to 40% of its equity interest, and agreed to bid for construction sections other than the said construction sections” to the effect that “AH agreed to bid at 40% of its equity interest,” and that “AH agreed to implement collusion.”

BL, at its own office on October 19, 2010, bid was made at a price calculated in advance between bidders as agreed in attached Table 10 and 7, from October 2019 to February 2012, 201, in order for them to be awarded a successful bid for the AS construction section allocated by AG as agreed upon by the above group, and the bid rate and bid price offered by the person in charge of the above company was offered as information and had the above company successful bid for the relevant construction section.

As a result, the defendant, in order to obtain unfair profits in bidding of construction works or to interfere with fair price determination, tender at a price calculated in advance between bidders and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

11) Defendant M (attached Table 10, 11, 12)

On December 18, 2012, at the Defendant’s office located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BR, the Defendant bid at a price agreed in advance between bidders, as agreed in attached Table Nos. 10, 11, and 12, as agreed on three times from October 19, 2010 to December 18, 2012, the Defendant used bid documents related to the bid documents delivered by B, H, G, and W to be awarded contracts.

As a result, the defendant, in order to obtain unfair profits in bidding of construction works or to interfere with fair price determination, tender at a price calculated in advance between bidders and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

12) Defendant T, U (attached Table 10, 11)

On October 2010, the Defendant U reported to the effect that, as in the foregoing 3. D. paragraph (d) of the above 3.3., the 13-party business groups in this case, “G was allocated a 20% share of AV bidding to Brazil (the representative director: B (50%) (20%) and BW (20%) through a 13-party business groups in this case, and that the section other than the above section was agreed to bid.” The Defendant T received the above report from U, and ordered the execution of collusion.

On December 2012, Defendant U issued bid-related documents to B, a representative company of AV bidding, and bid bid-related documents from G, H, and B, using bid-related documents, bid-related documents to be awarded by B, G, and other joint supply and demand companies (such as B and B) used bid-related documents, and bid bid for the said construction section with respect to the AV Corporation, which was agreed to be awarded by B, G, and other joint supply and demand companies. From October 19, 2010 to February 7, 2012, as agreed in attached Form No. 10 and paragraph (11) of the same Table of Crimes No. 10 and paragraph (11).

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

13) Defendant V and W (attached Form No. 10, 11, 12)

At the office of Defendant V around January 2010, Defendant C: (a) reported to the effect that, through a meeting of the 13 business chiefs among the 13 business chiefs of the instant case, Defendant C: (b) agreed to assign HV bid to Brazil [the representative company B (50%) in 20% of the equity share; (c) and (d) agreed to bid any construction section other than the said construction section [the 20%]; and (d) Defendant C instructed Defendant C to implement collusion after receiving the aforementioned report from Defendant C.

Defendant W, on December 2012, through the BJ chief, issued bid-related documents to B, the representative of the AV bidding, and bid-related documents from H, G, and AW, submitted the bid-related documents to B at the price calculated in advance among bidders as agreed on three occasions as agreed in attached Table No. 10, 11, and 12, from October 19, 2012 to December 18, 2012.

As a result, the Defendants submitted a bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits in bidding of construction works or impairing fair price determination, and interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive means or by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning the BS, BT, BV, BW, BL, AX, Q, BG, BY, BY, BY, BY, BY, CA, CB,CC,CC, BF, CE, BA, CF, BG, CH, and CI;

1. Each written statement of CJ, CK, CL, CM, CN, CO, BP, CP, Q, CR, CSS, and CT

1. Each investigation report [Attachment of data submitted by the AI Corporation related to the bidding, attachment of the bidding log to the Electronic Procurement System bidder, report on the current status of the company to the D-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

1. Data attached to each review report on the process level [the current status of bidding, evidentiary data (documents continuity), each statement of statement, and the current status of 13 companies engaged in unfair collaborative acts], data submitted by AI Corporation [the records of bidding paths, standards for examining the appropriateness of bidding, data on reducing eligibility for participation, etc., evaluation data on the detailed statement of examination of bid amount, data on lawsuits for compensation for damages by AI Corporation, and data related to each bidding];

1. Decision on accusation against the plenary session resolution of the Fair Trade Commission;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Residents, criminal records (not more than 3,188 pages), and court rulings (not more than 1,716 pages of investigation records);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J: Articles 70, 66(1)9, and 19(1)8 (generalization) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act;

B. Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U, V, X, Y, Z, AB, AB, AC, and AD: Article 95 Subparag. 1 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 14015, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (as regards the remaining Defendants except Defendant N, AA, and AB), Article 95 Subparag. 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the participation of other constructors by fraudulent means, as to the rest Defendants except Defendant N, AA, and AB)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U, V, X,Y, Z, AB, AC, AC, and AD: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, M, X, Y, AB, AB, AC, and AD: Selection of each fine

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant K: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, V, X, Y, Z, AB, AC, AC, and AD: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of each Criminal Act

Defendant C, D Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd., and F Co., Ltd.'s defense counsel's assertion that the statute of limitations expires (hereinafter in the name of the company, the entry of "Co.

The defendants' defense counsels mainly based on the following grounds, and each agreement in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 constitutes separate collaborative acts, not a series of continuous collaborative acts. As such, each agreement constitutes a crime of violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act by agreement, and thus, they establish a crime of violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and therefore, in relation to each agreement in 2005, 2006, 2006, and 2007, each violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act relating to each agreement in 2007, the statute of limitations has been instituted five years after the end of the crime (the last bidding date), and the defendant F participated in the agreement in 206.

A. The construction companies involved in Defendant C and Ecom have distributed only the estimated volume of the order only to the construction project at the time of each individual agreement. In the future, there was no comprehensive agreement to maintain collusion with respect to all AE projects ordered by AI Corporation. There is a significant difference in the detailed contents of each agreement, such as the number of participating companies, content of the agreement, method of implementation, existence of competition, and certainty.

B. Defendant D.

The agreement in 2005 had the possibility of failure of collusion because all construction companies qualified to participate in the bid did not participate in the bid, and the modification of the bid system led to the participation of all competitors in the competition in the agreement in 2006, and there was an essential difference in the degree of competition restriction. A new agreement was reached in 2007, which was not anticipated at the time of the agreement in 2006. In addition, five construction companies with the qualifications to participate in the tender during the implementation of the agreement in 2007, and there was a change in the number of members of each agreement.

C. Defendant F

The participating companies of each agreement are different, and the working-level officers are also changed. Other contents of the agreement, such as the content of the project subject to the agreement, the order of orders, and the composition of the joint supply and demand organization, are also different. There is a time gap for a long time between each

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In cases where enterprisers have reached an agreement on the basic principles of unfair collaborative acts and have reached several agreements in the process of implementing such agreement for a long time without the agreement on such basic principles, and where each agreement has been continuously implemented for the same purpose on the basis of a single agreement and without being cut off, it is reasonable to view the series of agreements as a whole as one unfair collaborative act, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du15169, Mar. 11, 2010). In such a case, when determining the "date on which an act in violation of the provisions of the main sentence of Article 49(4) of the Fair Trade Act has been completed, the overall series of agreements should not be judged separately, but rather, as a whole, when an act in violation of the provisions of this Act has been committed, the agreement such as price fixing, and miscellaneous on the basis thereof means the date on which an act in violation of the provisions of the Fair Trade Act has been completed, not the date on which the agreement was terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du198.

B. Specific determination

Examining the following circumstances revealed by each evidence in light of the aforementioned legal principles, each agreement in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 is deemed to have been implemented for the same purpose on the basis of a single intent and has been continuously implemented without interruption. Thus, it is reasonable to deem the whole agreement as one unfair collaborative act.

① At the end of January, 2005, the AI Corporation publicly announced a number of AE construction order plans, including AJ.

At around May 2005, six companies, including Defendant C, D, E, A, AG, and AF, prior to the AJ tender, participated in the tender with a prior agreement with the successful bidder for the purpose of avoiding mutual blood competition and allocating the volume of construction without risk to the stability by taking advantage of the fact that only the minority companies that can be qualified to participate in the said construction project requiring expertise can participate in limited participation in the tender. In addition, Defendant C, D, E, A, AG, and AF continued to engage in the act of implementation through a series of subsequent agreements for the same purpose in all bids related to the same kind of construction ordered by the AI corporation.

② After Defendant D, which was agreed as a successful bidder in AJ tender, was awarded the bid price for the said construction, the said six companies entered into a new agreement on bid collusion with Defendant F and B, including around March 2006, prior to the bid price for AK tender. However, this is because, unlike the existing bid in AK tender, there is no evaluation of appropriateness of bid price for improper construction types (in the case of an existing bid, one to two bidding will fall short of the number of construction types with low bid price, and the number of low-prices will fall short of the bid price. In fact, Defendant F and B excluded from the bid price for AJ tender on the grounds of “indemous construction type” and 3rd Defendant D will not be able to guarantee the successful bidder’s bid price if all companies qualified to participate in the decision-making of a successful bidder together with all other bidders.

Furthermore, the agreement in 2006 concluded in 2005, which was relatively less than the amount awarded except for Defendant D who has already been awarded a contract pursuant to the agreement in 2005, was to be awarded two successful bidders and to allocate the overall quantity to the public. As such, the agreement in 2006 was merely concluded on the extension line of the agreement in order to maintain the anti-competitive effect in the AE tender.

③ On June 8, 2007, the Defendants, including the Defendants, entered into a new agreement with respect to the said 8 bidding and the subsequent 4 bid scheduled to be awarded. However, prior to the end of the 2005 and the 2006 206 AO bidding (on November 13, 2007, the date of the actual bidding), the implementation of the 2007 207 agreement was finally terminated, and the order of the allocation of volume according to the 2005 and the 2006 agreement were the same (see the table of criminal facts). In particular, A and AG appears to have maintained the continuity of the agreement in addition to the fact that the 2007 agreement was accepted by the last 207 agreement even if the 2007 agreement was not awarded at the time, even if A and AG were not awarded a successful bid in AO bidding.

(4) The Defendants, including the Defendants, obtained the information that the instant eight bidding will first place an order for BE construction works without being ordered by BD bidding, which is the last tender subject to the agreement in 2007, and carried out discussions on new bid collusion. Meanwhile, the AI corporation failed to reach a new agreement on the tender price for the purpose of securing price competitiveness by inducing competition among the companies (a relaxation of similar performance criteria and increase allocated marks and reduce the number of marks marked with the same actual bidder) around September 2008 to January 2009, 5 companies, including J, G, AH, I, H, H, and H, including the above five companies, were to meet the new performance criteria. In addition, the previous eight companies agreed on the new four bidding price of the said construction project again on November 2009, which was the most expected to be the final bid price agreement between the participants for the purpose of maintaining the effect of restricting competition in the existing bid price. In particular, the pre-determined bid price agreement was set at the end of the 2007 bid price agreement.

⑤ There was a change in detailed contents between each agreement, such as subject of contract, order of acceptance, organization of a contracting body, and ratio of investment. However, the first six companies initially agreed to expect that a number of AE construction works will be ordered in the future, the volume of construction works will be distributed equally among the participants, and thus, stable order without competition. The employees in charge of contracting duties of each company shall meet several times in the process of concluding and implementing a series of agreements in order to comply with the above principles, and shall discuss the changes in the bidding method, countermeasures following the expansion of the participating companies, equity in the distribution of the quantity of stocks among the participating parties, etc. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that there was any changes in essential and essential contents between each agreement.

(Ⅰ) There exists a relatively long interval between the conclusion of each agreement in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009. However, as seen earlier, the Defendants and construction companies anticipated that a number of subsequent AE construction works will be ordered in the future, and the subsequent agreement was concluded in a successive manner in the state where the effect of the existing agreement is maintained, and there was no time gap between the acts of implementation by each agreement. Ultimately, the criminal intent regarding collusion between the Defendants, etc. appears not to be severed, and even if the Defendants and construction companies failed to predict the detailed contents of all the construction works to be ordered from the beginning and the specific period of orders, it cannot be viewed otherwise. Moreover, there is no circumstance to deem that the existing participants in the implementation under each agreement withdraw from the existing one or substantially have been suspended or destroyed due to competitive bidding.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Defendants’ aforementioned series of unfair collaborative acts constitute one of the crimes of violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, i.e., one of them constitutes a single crime. Therefore, it ought to be deemed that the content of the crime was finally realized and the crime was terminated by December 18, 2012 (Attached Table No. 12), which is the date of the last bidding pursuant to the agreement in 2009 (Attached Table No. 12). It is evident that the instant indictment was instituted on August 9, 2017, where five years have not elapsed from the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the defendants' defense counsel's assertion on the completion of the statute of limitations is not accepted, under the premise that the act of bid collusion according to each agreement of the year 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 constitutes a separate unfair collaborative act and constitutes a separate collaborative act.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendants who are corporations: Fines not exceeding 200 million won each;

B. Personal Defendants: each fine of 50 million won or less

2. Determination of sentence;

A. The Defendants of the corporation

In a large-scale construction project ordered by the AI Corporation, the Defendants made an open bid or participated in a bid at a bid price in order to pretend to be competitive bidding, by setting a successful bidder for each construction section in advance, and actually conducting a single bid. The Defendants, as large-scale construction companies, were in fundamental favorable status compared to other construction companies in the same large-scale specialized construction project as the instant construction project, and thereby undermining competition in the construction tender by engaging in collusion with the intent to avoid legitimate competition and maximize mutual benefits. Such Defendants’ act is likely to seriously undermine the purpose of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, which promotes creative business activities and aims to promote balanced development of the national economy, by promoting free competition. The bid bid bid bid bid price rate is not deemed to have been set as a whole, and in particular, the instant construction project, which was tendered by the Defendants in collusion with the Defendants, is highly large and large scale of the project and ultimately, damage caused by bid collusion, and thus, requires severe punishment.

However, the fact that both the Defendants recognized the crime and promised to prevent the recurrence, and the Defendants were punished in a series of collusion cases that occurred during the similar period in this case, and thereafter, endeavored to eradicate the act of collusion, the Defendants were imposed a considerable penalty surcharge on the remaining Defendants except Defendant F, H, and I who was exempted from the penalty surcharge due to the aggravation of financial situation, and the fact that the eligibility to participate in the government-funded construction works may be restricted in the future.

In determining individual sentencing individually, Defendant A, C, D, and E extended the scope of collusion over the period prior to the commission of the crime by leading the first conspiracy of the instant collusion and participating in the new competitive business. The rest of the Defendants, under the existing agreement, have been formed with the intention of collusion, making it de facto difficult to award a successful bid, resulting in ex post and passive collusion. Of them, the total quantity of orders distributed to Defendant G, H, I, and J is much less than that of other Defendants. Defendant F, H, and I are very difficult to financial situation of the company. In addition, the sentence identical to the disposition of the instant case is determined by comprehensively taking into account all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the motive, background, profit and management situation of the Defendants involved in the collusion, degree of cooperation in the investigation process, degree of cooperation in the investigation process, and similar time, etc.

B. Personal Defendants

The Defendants, while serving as the executive officers and employees in charge of receiving orders from each construction company, interfered with fair competition in the tender of construction works by doing acts such as reporting or approving a specific performance in accordance with the instant bidding collusion agreement. This is ultimately attributable to the interests and responsibilities of the Defendants in the workplace, and ultimately, it is necessary to raise awareness of bid collusion through strict punishment corresponding to the relevant criminal liability.

However, the defendants confession and reflect all the facts charged, and there are circumstances to consider the fact that the defendants were either directly or indirectly involved in the act of collusion in this case or carried out the decision made by the corporation in accordance with the position assigned within the company to which they belong. The economic benefits accrued from the act of collusion in this case is the company, and the defendants are not separately responsible for the profits directly acquired by the defendants, and some of the defendants are liable for criminal liability as the final responsible person, and there are grounds for not participating in the whole process of the collusion. There are facts that the defendants K, M, N, N, P, P, P, T, U,V, Y, and AB were punished for the same act of collusion in the same time as in this case, and all the other defendants were either initial nor have no criminal record.

In determining individual sentencing individually, the sentence like the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all of the following factors: the period and degree of the Defendants’ participation in or the liability for the instant collaborative act; the leadingness of the instant collaborative act by the company to which they belong; Defendant AC’s voluntary reporting and active cooperation in the instant collaborative act; equity in the case of Defendant K before and after the judgment became final; the determination in similar cases at a similar time; the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of the crime; and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of the instant case, including

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Doi-ro

1) In the initial agreement, even if the entire construction company entitled to participate in the agreement was not involved in the agreement, it shall be deemed that there was almost no actual competition in the bidding in accordance with the agreement. Accordingly, Defendant C, D, and E counsel’s assertion to the effect that the initial agreement exists, and there is a partial competition, and there is a difference between “the existence of competition or the degree of restriction on competition” between the parties thereafter, and thus, criminal intent should be different between each agreement.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.