All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 95 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter the same) stipulates that a person who commits an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs in bidding for construction works shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, and subparagraph 3 of Article 95 provides that “a person who interferes with other constructors’ bidding by deceptive means, force or other means.

In full view of the purpose of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the legislative intent under which the aforementioned penal provision is established to promote the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry, this is intended to specially aggravated punishment for constructors who engage in any act detrimental to the fairness of bidding in bidding in addition to the grounds stipulated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article, and thus, constitutes a special provision for a crime of interference with bidding under Article 315 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4700, Feb. 9, 2001). Here, “tender act” obstructs

The Criminal Act refers to the fulfillment of the requirements for a crime of interference with bidding under Article 95 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, so the concept of "tender act" under Article 95 subparagraph 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry shall be the same as

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the selection of the executor of the housing redevelopment project of this case constitutes "tender", which is the object of the interference with bidding, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, and that the act of undermining the fairness of bidding by providing money and goods to the association members and demanding a written resolution on the selection of the contractor from the association members under the collusion with the defendant A, B, and C on the tender announcement of the housing redevelopment project of this case and the bid of the constructor had already been conducted.