The judgment below

Defendant G, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, and AA, respectively.

Defendant

G and V imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant K and L1) No possibility that BW corporation (hereinafter “stock company” or “limited company”) will be awarded a successful bid from the beginning due to the restriction on eligibility for bid by mistake of facts, etc.

As to the bid cases, there was no intention to participate in the bidding by the Defendants, and there was no awareness or intention about the collusion act.

must be viewed.

2) Legal principles: (a) Defendant K and L conspired in good faith with the intent to maintain the designation of a small and medium enterprise for BM in the government-funded market; and (b) otherwise, the person awarding the contract suffered a loss.

It is difficult to see that the act recorded in the facts charged does not constitute an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding.

② Where bidding participants participate in bidding under the name of the BK Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”), the remaining companies other than the unions do not meet the qualification test criteria, and ultimately, they do not constitute a competitive bidding, and if other companies do not participate in bidding, they are bound to enter into a number of contracts under the name of the troup association.

Therefore, in such a case, the defendants' act of obtaining a successful bid from a partnership on the ground of a certain business entity as stated in the facts charged does not constitute an act of impairing the fairness of bidding.

③ In a case where there was no company from the beginning to the beginning because the basic price is too low in reality or the construction area is too poor, the case where the BM in itself was able to comply with only a specific company due to special circumstances is not to be discussed by the Defendants by collusion in order to induce multiple contracts.

In such cases, it does not constitute an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding.

3) Improper one deliberation of sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant S1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the instant case.