Whether it constitutes a crime of interference with bidding if the same person is the same as a competitive bidding while conducting a single bidding as a means to prevent reckless competition between partners.

The obstruction of bidding does not require the actual appearance of the result as a dangerous crime, and the act includes not only the act of determining the price but also the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method. Thus, even if the act is merely a means to prevent an influencing competition among the members of the snow company and thus it does not harm the interests of the bidder in the bid price or make the bidder gain unfair profits from the bidder, if the act is the same as that of the competitive bidding while conducting a single bidding, it would be likely that the act would interfere with the method of competitive bidding in that it would cause the successful bidder to win the bid.

Article 315 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4485, Oct. 22, 1991) (Law No. 1991, 2873) (Law No. 1991, 2873)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Hong-hoon

Busan District Court Decision 94No1263 delivered on June 29, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The obstruction of bidding does not require the actual appearance of the result as a dangerous crime, and the act includes not only the act of determining the price, but also the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method. Thus, even if the act was merely a means to prevent an infinite competition among the members of the snow company and thus it does not harm the interests of the bidder in the bidding price or cause the bidder to gain unjust profits, if the act is the same as the competitive bidding while conducting a single competitive bidding, it would have harmed the competitive bidding in that it would cause the successful bid as the bid price, and thereby prejudice the fairness of the bidding (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do2646 delivered on March 8, 198). In this regard, the court below was justified in finding the defendant guilty by taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the obstruction of bidding.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

In addition, by comparing the employment evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below with the records, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts constituting the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and it cannot be said that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)