2018No1972 A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

(Partial Preliminary Crime in Occupational Breach of Trust)

(b) Bidding interference;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

1. A. B.

2.(a)(c) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.(a)(b), D

5. (a)(b) E.

6.(a)F

Defendants and Kim Jong-chul

Kim Acquisition, alteration of the course of business, and a trial for abnormal title;

Law Firm KEL, Attorney finalway, Hong Faz. (Defendant A, C, D,

E, F :

Law Firm Jeong-woo, Attorneys Kim U-American (Defendant D and F)

Law Firm continental Aju, Attorneys Kim Yong-hoon, Lee Yong-hee

Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Jeon Byung-soo, and Lee Jin (Defendant B)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 Gohap45, 2018 Gohap85 decided June 29, 2018 (Sick)

2) Judgment

February 22, 2019

The part of the judgment of the court below guilty (including the part not guilty in the reasons) shall be reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and two months, Defendant C, D, E, and F by imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years for Defendant C, D, E, and F.

Of the facts charged in this case, each bid interference with the 2 and 3 integrated bids listed in the [Attachment 5 and 6] of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants, the facts of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the primary facts charged, and the facts of breach of occupational duty, which is the ancillary facts charged, shall be acquitted.

The prosecutor's appeal on the part not guilty (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds) of the judgment of the court shall be dismissed.

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be publicly announced to the Defendants.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

Of the facts charged against Defendant B in the violation of the Act on the AF-related Act on the AF-related Crimes (Embezzlement), the part concerning the "AW-related crime" in attached Table 1 of the judgment below, the part concerning the "AF-related crime", the part concerning the "crime related to the payment of false benefits", the part concerning the "crime related to the payment of false benefits", and the part concerning the "crime related to the payment of false benefits" in attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court below among the crimes related to the violation of the Act on the AF-related Act on the AF-related Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant B, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the part concerning the "crime related to the AF-related crime", and the part concerning the Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 19 of the "AF-related crime" among the non-guilty portion that Defendant B and the prosecutor did not appeal, and the part concerning the "AK-related crime" in the above section concerning the No. 19 of the judgment below excluded from this judgment and did not escape from the judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, C, D, F, and E (hereinafter “G Defendants”).

1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The point of interference with bidding

(1) In purchasing a spectrum (SPEC-IN) from Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y”), G Co., Ltd. and N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) and Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y”), a negotiated contract was concluded with Y to compare the estimated amount with a quotation received from other companies while entering into a negotiated contract with Y, and there was no bid procedure subject to interference with bidding, since there was no bid procedure.

(2) In the bidding at the site of AD building as set forth in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment (attached Table 1) ordered by G, the date of the preparation of a written estimate for the amount agreed upon with G after the bidding is set as a successful bidder, and the date of the preparation is retroactive to the date of the first written estimate submission. However, while the completion schedule was imminent at the time of the completion, the supply capacity of AE, which is a new production company, is not verified, is merely selected as the successful bidder, and thus does not constitute an act of interference with bidding.

(3) In the Home Network Tender listed in the [Attachment 2] of the lower judgment ordered by G and N, it does not constitute an act of interference with bidding where the bid price is consulted with Y and the bidder based on the spectrum system of the model model house and agency protection policy in the Home Network Tender listed in the [Attachment 3] of the lower judgment, which is ordered by G and N.

(4) The first integrated tender listed in the [Attachment 4] of the lower judgment ordered by G and N, the second integrated tender listed in [Attachment 5], and the third integrated tender listed in [Attachment 6], and the third integrated tender listed in [Attachment 6] are merely because material in Y was spectrumed on a model house, and cannot be deemed as favorable for Y solely because Y conducted the first, second, and third integrated tender. In relation to the first, second, and third integrated tender, “an act of modifying Y’s estimated price after consultation with Y’s individual consultation with Y without a price adjustment in excess of the implementation budget”, “an act of modifying Y’s estimated price by increasing the estimated price at other sites instead of reducing the estimated price at some sites bid in excess of the implementation budget,” and “an act of notifying Y of the existing estimate to Y’s existing bid price in the process of consultation with Y and other existing bidders.”

(5) The G Defendants did not know of the price collusion with Y, AK (hereinafter “AK”), AL corporation (hereinafter “AL”), etc. and did not constitute an act of interference with bidding in collusion with Defendant B.

B) Occupation of occupational breach of trust

(1) Of the integrated tenderings 1, 2, and 3 integrated tendering, G parties did not engage in any act of interference with the tender of G parties, and it does not constitute an act of interference with their duties, in light of the size of construction business of G and N at the time, the Spe system and agency protection policy, and the details of sales agreements on exclusive sales rights concluded by theY and AL, etc., if G parties purchased home network through Y without direct contracting with AL or soliciting AL, etc. to participate in the bidding process.

(2) The G Defendants had no intent to commit an occupational breach of trust with the intent to commit an occupational breach of trust with the person in charge of the product development team, the person in charge of the estimated budget team, or those who had an impact on the whole of them

(3) It cannot be readily concluded that this part of the contract price entered into with G and N is higher than the expected amount in ordinary competitive bidding, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the risk of actual damage or damage has occurred to G and N.

C) Sub-decision

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the lower court against the G Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The point of interference with bidding

(1) In light of the procedures for the purchase of G and N’s material, the absence of the bid participants’ actual intent to participate in the bid, the negotiation of the successful bid price by field after the bid procedure, the Scpe system and the agency protection policy, etc., G and N merely purchased a different, lighting, and home network from the country through a quotation comparison procedure to verify whether the bid price is an appropriate estimate amount, not through the tender procedure, and there is no bid procedure that is subject to interference with the tender.

(2) In the bidding at the site of AD building site, G Defendants selected Y, which is not the lowest bidder, as a successful bidder, which is not the AE, and prepare a written estimate at which the amount consulted with Y after the bidding is the bid price, and the date of the preparation is retroactive to the date of the first written estimate. However, this is merely the date of the completion schedule, while the supply capacity of AE, which is the new contractor, is not verified, is determined as the optimal bidder, and thus does not constitute an act of interference with bidding.

(3) The consultation between Y and bidders does not constitute an act of interference with bidding in light of the following: (a) in the Home Network tender prior to the 1, 2, and 3 integrated tendering, in light of the Scpeic system and agency protection policy, and the content of the sales agreement on exclusive sales rights concluded by Y and AL or by Y.

(4) In the first integrated bid, the SS, which presented the lowest estimated price in the tender, did not have a substantial intent to participate in the tender, and the bidding procedure is completed by presenting the estimated price in excess of the implementation budget. As such, the G Defendants’ purchase of materials through individual consultation with Y, a spectrum business entity, does not constitute an act of interference with the tender.

(5) In the second integrated bid, the Defendants’ conclusion of a partial supply contract with the amount higher than the initial estimate amount of Y is merely a compensation for damages arising in the course of price consultation at another site and does not constitute an act of interference with bidding.

(6) In the third integrated bid, G presented the material "the current status of integrated orders, including the actual amount of performance, etc. of other companies," but this is merely a use of the material as a tool for negotiations in the process of concluding a supply contract with Y, and does not constitute an act of interference with bidding.

B) Occupation of occupational breach of trust

(1) The act of the G Defendants, who are the status of occupational breach of trust, of purchasing lighting, painting, and home network from the Y selected as the supplier based on the spectrum system and agency protection policy, does not constitute an act of breach of duty. As such, the Defendant cannot be punished as an occupational breach of trust.

(2) Defendant B actively participated in the act of breach of duties of the G Defendants by simultaneously responding to the request for submission of a quotation between G and N, or by notifying the bid participants of the estimated price, and by soliciting the Defendants to commit this part of the crime, or exercising undue influence beyond the business activities of G and N, etc.

C) Defendant B paid all the money listed in the sequence 1 through 11, and part 16 of the "TAK-related crime in attached Table 1 of the crime committed in attached Table 1 of the original judgment to AK representative, but embezzled it.

D) Sub-determination

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of Defendant B is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The point of interference with bidding

In the case of a lighting tender at the 14 sites remaining after the remainder of the AD building site other than the AD building site stated in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment, there is a bidding procedure practically even if the formal requirements, such as bidding notice, are not satisfied in the case of a lighting tender at the Daegu R apartment site listed in the attached Table 2 of the lower

B) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, while processing the affairs related to the purchase of G and N, G may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendants violated the duty of occupational breach of trust and maximize the interests of the company in the supply of the materials, thereby having no substantial role in the supply of the materials, by selecting G and N as the supplier by inserting them into the intermediate company of the home network supply contract, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to the difference between the “Y supply price of G and N” and the “Y K and the “AL supply price”, and sufficiently recognize the fact that the G and N suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount.

C) Violation of double punishment (Embezzlement) of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, in the case of the crime No. 2 of the "AF-related crime" of the judgment below's "AF-related crime" in the list of crimes in the court below, the defendant B withdraws KRW 1.60 million from the account of W (hereinafter referred to as "W") for the repayment of credit purchase amount to AF, and only KRW 100 million out of which is deposited into the account of AF, and the remaining KRW 60 million has been arbitrarily consumed and embezzled while on duty.

D) Sub-determination

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too uncomfortable.

3. Ex officio determination

The judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor shall be examined ex officio.

In the first instance, the prosecutor added the facts of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) as the primary facts charged, added the facts of the occupational breach of trust as the preliminary facts charged, added the "preliminary name of the crime" to the name of the crime, applied for permission to change the indictment to the facts of the crime acknowledged under the No. 12 or No. 18 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B among the facts charged in this case. Since this court permitted this, the conviction part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Even if the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the modified facts charged.

4. Determination of misconception of facts as to the obstruction of bidding by the Defendants and the prosecutor

A. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendants conspired to receive the successful bid by informing the so-called so-called "satur enterprise" or the price eligible for the successful bid in the bidding for the selection of G and N T, lighting, and home network suppliers.

A) The part of the tender on the other day (excluding the site of AD building) listed in the [Attachment 1] of the lower judgment

From March 2014 to August 2015, the Defendants decided that the Defendants will award Y as the above public offering to the suppliers from March 2014, to August 2015 (the Defendant F is excluded from April 2014 to June 2015) G and N’s order in the lower court’s attached Form 1 of the lower judgment, such as the selection of suppliers at each site other than the AD building site, among the sites listed in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment.

Accordingly, Defendant E and F notified Defendant B of the participation in the bidding of DK, DL, DM, DM, DN, DO, DP, etc., and Defendant B, from the representatives of each of the above companies, entered an amount higher than Y's bid price in a written estimate in the form of dry or voluntary written estimate, and submitted a written estimate in the name of each company, and Defendant A, C, D, E, and F knowingly knew of the above price collusion, etc., and subsequently selected Y as a supplier by arranging the relevant documents and approving the goods selected by the supplier as if Defendant A, C, D, E, and F were awarded the lowest price bid through a normal procedure.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired from March 2014 to August 2015 (the Defendant F was excluded from April 2014 to June 2015 during the above period) obstructed tenders for the selection of suppliers of all kinds of G and N by deceptive means, such as the details of the remaining sites except for AD building parts among the site as shown in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment (attached Table 1).

B) The part of the examination of lighting at the Daegu RR apartment site listed in the [Attachment 2] of the lower judgment

On September 2017, the Defendants decided that YB will be awarded a successful bid in the designated competitive bidding (sponsed bid method) such as the selection of a Daegu RR apartment site master as shown in the attached Table 2 of the lower judgment (SP) that ordered G to be awarded by G as the supplier.

As a result, Defendant E notified Defendant B of the participation in the bidding to AK which is easy to collusion with Defendant B, and Defendant B agreed with the representative of AK to participate in the bidding at a higher price than the price of the bid, and Defendant A, C, and E intended to participate in the other bidding could not be awarded a successful bid by estimating the price higher than the bid price that Defendant A, C, and E knew of the above price collusion, etc., and Defendant A, C, and E selected Y as the supplier by arranging the relevant documents and approving the goods selected by the supplier as if Defendant A, C, and E were awarded the lowest price bid through a normal procedure.

In the end, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the bidding for the selection of the G and N's lighting material suppliers by deceptive means.

2) The judgment of the court below

A) The part of the tender on the other day (excluding the site of AD building) listed in the [Attachment 1] of the lower judgment

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court stated that “AFV sent a tender statement to YB by means of its own e-mail.” Then, Y CH sent an estimated price to the GY’s team by sealing it, and GY’s tender offer was formally accepted.” At the court of the lower court’s trial, the Defendants stated that “IV sent a bid statement to YB based on the e-mail estimate to the effect that I would not directly participate in the tender, but submitted a bid offer to B after receiving a request from CH, etc., and that “IF’s presentation of a bid price to YY based on the e-mail estimate to the effect that I would be difficult to acknowledge the existence of any other part of the tender offer to GY based on the e-mail estimate that I would have been submitted from December 2014 to May 2, 2015.”

B) The part of the examination of lighting at the Daegu RR apartment site listed in the [Attachment 2] of the lower judgment

The lower court comprehensively found the following circumstances, namely, (1) the KR apartment reconstruction project association, which is the project owner related to the Daegu apartment site, requested the alteration of lighting fixtures constructed in G to PED from around October 26, 2016; (2) the POE purchase team at the site of the said construction project was urged to purchase lighting fixtures on August 3, 2017; and (3) the POE’s external purchase team was present at the site of the construction project, and there were many sites included in the notice of the bid participation; (4) the Defendants were present at the 4th integrated bidding process; (4) the apartment site construction project implementer, which is the project owner of the NAG apartment site, submitted a estimate to the effect that it was not required to enter into the NAG apartment site at the 4th integrated bidding process on August 7, 2017; and (4) the POE 20-20-20-20-20-20-20-200-20-7.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In order to establish an act of interfering with bidding under Article 315 of the Criminal Act, there is a tendering procedure that is the object of interference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do5037, May 5, 2008; 2007Do5037, Mar. 25, 2005). In fact, the act of preparing only a formal bidding document and manipulating it as if there were bids, without entirely implementing bidding documents for the purpose of concluding a negotiated contract with a specific company without an intent to implement the bidding procedure, does not constitute an act of tendering at a manipulated price in advance in collusion with other bidders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do4700, Feb. 9, 2001; 2004Do5731, Mar. 25, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision of not guilty of all charges based on the above determination of evidence is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

1) Whether there exists a bid procedure in AD building, AD AI apartment, Ulsan AJ apartment bidding and the first, second, and third integrated bidding

The Defendants asserted the same purport as the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail.

In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that there was a tendering procedure subject to a tender interference in this part of the tendering procedure is justifiable, and the Defendants’ assertion is without merit, in view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.

(1) The court below stated that the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of this part of the tendering procedure, the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th public tender, the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th public tender, the 5th anniversary of the fact that the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th public tender, the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th public tender, the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th public tender, the 5th anniversary of the 5th public tender, the 5th anniversary of the 2nd public tender documentation's tender.

B) As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the tender participants do not have substantial intent to participate in the tender, and that the notice of the participation in the tender sent by G and N to the tender participants does not include specific standards, etc., this part of the tender pertains to G and N, but only to compare the estimated price of various companies in order to verify whether it is a reasonable estimate amount.

① However, it is difficult to view that the notice of tender sent by the Defendants to the participating companies regarding this part of the tender contains no specific criteria because the contents of the estimate and the terms of payment, the date and time of estimation, etc. Rather, this is rather difficult to view that the tender is not included in the specific criteria. Rather, with respect to the tender for the Hacheon HP apartment, the G Defendants sent to HT, JZ, and Y around February 28, 2017, the notice of tender was similar to the notice of estimate, which is included in the main day of “GbucheonHHP Apartment Apartment apartment in relation to the Ma/H advance bidding,” and the contents and form thereof, and ② the KB, who served as the external purchasing team, at the court of the first instance, is able to make an estimate while entering into a negotiated contract with SP companies, but it is not possible for the Defendants to receive the notice of tender to the effect that “The bid is sealed, sealed, sealed, and submitted without sealing it,” and the Defendants’ bid agent’s new bid is not acceptable.

2) The point of interference with bidding on AD building, AD AI apartment, Ulsan AJ apartment bidding, and the first integrated bidding

The obstruction of bidding is a dangerous crime that is established when the fairness of bidding is harmed by a deceptive scheme, threat of force, or any other means, and thus, the "act detrimental to the fairness of bidding" here does not require the actual appearance of the result. The "act detrimental to the fairness of bidding" includes the act of causing a situation that is likely to interfere with fair competition, that is, causing a situation that would unfairly affect fair price formation through fair competition, and the act includes not only the price-fixing but also the act detrimental to the legitimate and fair competition method. The act of collusion between bidding participants does not necessarily require collusion with all bidding participants for the purpose of interfering with bidding. Even if the collusion was conducted only with some of the bidding participants, so long as it is evaluated as detrimental to the fairness of bidding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8498, Jun. 9, 2006; 2004Do2581, Dec. 22, 2006).

The Defendants asserted the same purport as the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the circumstances revealed by the court below, the court below’s determination that the Defendants conspired to interfere with tendering by considering the following circumstances, which are duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

A) Bidding interference

(1) AD building bid part

A) As stated in the judgment below, it is reasonable to view that the act of G’s submitting a estimate of the minimum estimated amount, which was submitted by the G, to the Y in the tender at the AD building site, was an act of unfairly affecting the reasonable price formation through fair competition, and impairing the legitimate and fair competition methods, and thereby constitutes an act of interference with bidding by deceptive means, as it is deemed that the act of submitting a estimate of the minimum estimated amount, which is the lowest price, was determined as the Y, was determined as the successful bidder, and later notified Y of the estimated amount submitted by AE.

On the other hand, the Defendants asserted that AE selected as a successful bidder a Y whose supply capacity, etc. was verified as a new contractor because the supply capacity, etc. was not verified.

(1) However, at the court of the court below's determination of the second or third companies, other than the first or third companies in terms of price, is not to be made at the discretion of the head of the external purchase team, but to the effect that the company's low price deliberation falls short of the scores and the second or third companies are being followed by the procedure of ".... above, the Defendants do not appear to have gone through these procedures in the bidding." ② Defendant D stated in the investigative agency that "the first or third companies were not capable of purchasing the first or third companies," and Defendant D did not have the capacity of purchasing the second or third companies in the bidding process of the first or third bidding, because it was difficult for the first or third companies to receive the second or third companies to receive the second or third bidding price from the second or third companies in the bidding process of AD facilities site, it appears to have been difficult for the first or third companies to receive the second or third bidding price to have been located in the bidding process of AE to the extent that it had not been able to receive the first or the second bidding price in the bidding process.

C) In addition, Defendant B argues to the effect that there is no room for undermining the fairness of a tender in a case where the tender becomes null and void due to a serious procedural defect. However, the interference with the tender does not require the actual appearance of the outcome as a dangerous crime. It is reasonable to view that even if the tender is null and void due to an act detrimental to the fairness of the tender, it does not affect the interference with the tender already established. Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(2) The part of the Home Network tender prior to the astronomical AI apartment, Ulsan AJ apartment, and the integrated bid.

(1) 1) YK supplied YGG products to G and N, which were manufactured and purchased by GGG and its supply company, and Y was allowed to participate in the bidding at a price lower than the bid price. 2) At the investigation agency and the court below’s decision, Defendant 2 would not be allowed to participate in the bidding at a price lower than the bid price. Then, Defendant 2 would not be allowed to participate in the bidding at a reasonable price lower than the bid price. Then, Defendant 2 would not be allowed to participate in the bidding at a reasonable price lower than the bid price, and Defendant 2 would not be allowed to participate in the bidding.

(2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the above actions are merely due to the spectrum system and agency protection policies, Y, AL, and sales agreements on exclusive sales rights between AK, and do not constitute a bid interference.

① However, a company that manufactures or supplies a sample of a sample house may have de facto advantages in supplying the material. However, it is not a restriction on participating in a tender at a lower price by manufacturers or other agencies. ② AY’s business division also received an estimate of “where a tender is made by an investigation agency, it is possible to supply a product as a design,” and stated to the effect that “the Defendants are entitled to a more competitive tender at a more competitive price due to the terms and conditions of payment for the price, etc.” In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the Defendants’ head office can not be seen as a bidding procedure for the material. ③ It is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act of purchasing the material through an independent public tender agreement with AY and N, although it is acknowledged that the Defendants were aware that the Defendants were to have entered into a public tender agreement with G and its head office, and that the Defendants’ act of purchasing the material constitutes an independent supplier’s act of purchasing the material through an independent public tender agreement with GL 14. It is found that the Defendants were unable to participate in the public tender.

(3) The first integrated bid part

(가) 2016.1.10. 실시된 1차 통합입찰절차에서 ① 조명 부분의 실행예산은 2,731,177,250원이고, 4개 입찰참여업체 모두 실행예산을 초과한 견적금액을 제출하였는데, Y과 CQ이 각 합계 3,209,295,000원으로 응찰하여, CY(3,369,043,900원), DZ(3,546,623,000원)보다 낮은 금액을 제출하였고, ② 타일 부분의 실행예산은 4,369,338,550원이고, 6개 입찰참여업체 모두 실행예산을 초과한 견적금액을 제출하였는데, CS가 합계 4,946,606,945원으로 응찰하여, Y(4,999,385,945원), DA(4,948,018,445 원), DB(4,948,235,945원), DW(5,085,364,700원), AH(5,200,992,655원)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였으며, ③ 홈네트워크의 실행예산은 3,814,430,000원인데, 2개 입찰참여업체인 Y(4,329,428,000원)과 AL(4,416,498,000원)이 모두 실행예산을 초과한 견적금액을 제출하였다. 내 피고인 A은 수사기관에서 "실행예산 범위 내이면 최저가 업체가 선정이 되고, 실행예산 외이면 재입찰을 하거나 재입찰이 어려울 때에는 응찰업체들을 대상으로 가격 협상을 한다"는 취지로 진술하고, 피고인 E도 수사기관에서 "실행예산 대비 80% 이하 이면 저가심의를 하고, 모든 업체가 실행예산을 넘기면 보통 재입찰 또는 1, 2, 3순위 업체를 불러 가격조정 협의를 한다"는 취지로 진술한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 1차 통합 입찰 이후 재입찰 또는 입찰참여업체들을 대상으로 한 가격협상이 개시됨이 상당함에도, G측 피고인들은 피고인 B과 공모하여 동일 견적금액을 제출한 CQ이나 최저가 업체인 CS 등을 배제한 채 마치 Y이 실행예산을 초과하지 않는 최저 견적금액의 견적서를 제출하였던 것처럼 새로운 견적서를 날짜를 소급하여 작성한 다음 기존의 견적서와 교체함으로써 마치 정상적인 경쟁입찰을 거쳐 Y이 실행예산 범위 내에서 최저가로 낙찰된 것처럼 가장하였다. 대 앞서 본 사정 등에 ① 개찰 절차는 피고인 E이 입찰 봉투를 개봉하여 견적서를 꺼내 보여주면 피고인 A이 서명을 하고 개봉날짜를 기재하는 방식에 의하고, 피고인D은 수사기관에서 "특정 업체를 위해 입찰서류 제출기한을 연장해 주는 일은 없다"는 취지로 진술하며, CY의 영업부에서 근무하던 B0도 원심 법정에서 "처음 입찰할 때 낸 견적서를 다시 고치는 일은 없다"는 취지로 진술한 반면, Y은 1차 통합입찰 이후 제출기한을 넘겨 견적금액을 수정한 견적서를 제출한 점, ② CU오피스텔 현장과 서산 CX 현장의 구매품의서 등에는 검토의견에 "견적요청 당시 최저가 업체 선정방식을 주지시 켰으며, 입찰참여업체 중 최저가 업체이자 실행예산을 만족시키는 Y으로 발주하고자 합니다"라는 문구가 기재되어 있는바, G측 피고인들은 마치 처음부터 Y이 최저가로 입찰하여 낙찰자로 선정된 것과 같은 외관을 형성한 점, ③ 앞서 본 바와 같이 최저가 업체가 아닌 업체를 선정하는 것은 외주구매팀장 등의 재량에 의할 수 없고 일정한 절차를 거쳐야 하는데도, G측 피고인들은 CS, CQ과의 협의를 거치지 아니한 채 Y을 낙찰자로 결정하였고, CQ의 대표인 BI도 수사기관에서 "보통 견적금액이 동일한 경우 두 업체 모두와 협상을 하나 그러한 과정을 거치지 않았다"는 취지로 진술한 점, ④ 1차 통합입찰에서 입찰참여업체들이 모두 실행예산을 초과하는 견적금액을 제출하였다고하여 곧바로 입찰절차가 종료한다고 볼 수 없고, 설령 입찰절차가 종료한다고 보더라도 실행예산 내의 입찰금액을 기재한 견적서를 소급하여 제출하는 등의 행위는 Y이 처음부터 실행예산 내에서 최저가 업체로 선정되어 1차 통합입찰이 정상적으로 진행되어 종료된 것처럼 가장하는 행위에 해당하는 점 등을 보태어 보면, 피고인들이 위와 같은 방법으로 Y을 낙찰자로 선정한 행위는 공정한 자유경쟁을 통한 적정한 가격형성에 부당한 영향을 주고 적법하고 공정한 경쟁방법을 해하는 것으로서 입찰방해행위에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다.

B) Examining the following circumstances in light of the details and details of the act of interference with bidding prior to the public invitation of the Defendants G and Defendant B, the G Defendants conspired with the Defendants B to fully recognize the fact that the Defendants conspired with the Defendants, thereby obstructing the bidding.

(1) At the investigation agency and the original court, YB, “Y is in the form of a quotation for other package companies to be submitted to G or N.” Therefore, upon receipt of a request from G, B and CR selected several package companies with the Defendant’s order, and then written a quotation at a different level from the total unit price, and submitted it to the G external purchase team with a single bag attached to the Y estimate. The site submitted to G or N with a quotation of other companies by collecting a quotation from their own quotation and the other companies, and the Defendant stated that “Y is in the site other than the AD building site” in the attached Table 1 of the lower court’s judgment. In light of the fact that the Defendants submitted a bid to the G or N without any reasonable bid agreement, the Defendant appears to have submitted a bid offer to other package companies, such as J apartment, Ulsan Apartment apartment, and the YGG, which entered into a contract with the investigation agency on March 6, 2015, the Defendant appears to have failed to comply with the tender documentation of the Defendant.”

(2) From Y to Y from 29 December 2015, 2017, CI also stated to the effect that “Defendant B was present at the meeting of G and N at the time at that time. In sending a unit price list with items that had been tendered before the towing, the Defendant B made a statement to the effect that “I would like to modify any part different from the towing.”

(3) As in the tendering procedure for AD building and the first integrated tendering procedure, the act of modifying the estimated amount of the existing estimates submitted by Y and submitting them retroactively to the date is possible only through the assistance of the Defendants in the G. BA, an employee of Y, also stated to the effect that “The investigation agency has to prepare a quotation after the occurrence of the quotation, and there was a lot of cases where Y would have to do so, and such price adjustment was made in G to the effect that she talks with Defendant B, or even if she talks with Defendant B, it would be fast to talk with Defendant B.” In fact, BA stored files such as “AD” and “AD specifications” in the USB.

(4) In addition, on February 5, 2016, Defendant C, D, and BO Y’s consultation related to the bid of materials and written documents, “The matters related to the bid of Y /HPIN Products” state on February 5, 2016, that “The matters related to the tender of Y” include the following: “Although the bid price of Y was integrated, the portion of 10% to 18% higher than the actual budget and the base price, the portion of the tender price was higher than that of the other companies that submitted the estimate with the unit price received from Y, and the submission of a comparison sheet for the estimate with the highest unit price.”

3) The point of interference with tendering for the two and the third integrated tendering.

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant B broadcasted the contents of this case in around September 2015, and at around November 2015, the issue related to the transaction with G and N such as accusation, etc., the issue of transaction with G and N could no longer be traded any more, and thus, Defendant A demanded Defendant A to supply materials to the pre-designated site. Defendant A accepted the above demand, and Defendant C, D, E, and F to supply them to Defendant C, E, and F as shown in [Attachment 5] and [Attachment 6] of the lower judgment, Defendant A] and N to conduct an integrated bid at each time by combining a large number of sites of G (including affiliated AA) and N as shown in the [Attachment 6] of the lower judgment. Defendant C, D, E, and F agreed to determine as the successful bidder regardless of the estimated amount submitted by the participating enterprises and to correct the estimated amount submitted by Defendant C, E, E, and F to this end, Defendant C, E, E, and F conspired as the successful bidder from 2 and 3 combined bidding.

Accordingly, Defendant B had already submitted a written estimate for each site before the date of each contract, around May 2016 in the case of the second integrated bidding, and around November 2016 in the case of the third integrated bidding, but in some of the field, Defendant B had determined Y as a successful bidder or as a successful bidder, such as that the estimate exceeds the implementation budget of G and N or exceeds the amount higher than that of other companies participating in the bidding.

As such, the Defendants agreed on the successful bidder in each field directly to adjust the successful bidder price in Y with e-mail, or exchange data related to the successful bid price with e-mail, etc. to determine the successful bid price at a higher level than the estimated price that Y raised by Y to compensate for the damage to the successful bid price, etc. In addition, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F, as shown in the [Attachment 5] and [Attachment 6] of the lower judgment, once again prepared and submitted each quotation at the price determined by Y as above on the date of each contract as stated in the [Attachment 6] of the lower judgment, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F, as if Y was awarded as the lowest successful bidder through a normal competitive bidding procedure, selected Y as the supplier by arranging the relevant documents and approving the goods selected by the supplier.

Ultimately, from July 2016 to April 2017, the Defendants conspired and interfered with tenders for the selection of suppliers of the material in the Home Network System by deceptive means, such as the details in the [Attachment 5], [Attachment 6], and [Attachment 6], of G (including A) and N, lighting, and home network network network network.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, found all of the charges guilty.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below and the court below as duly admitted and examined the evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants committed an act of interference with bidding in connection with the 2 and 3 integrated bidding to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is with merit.

(1) In a bid interference act as stated in this part of the facts charged, under the circumstance that the amount of the estimate exceeds this G and N’s implementation budget, or is in response to the higher amount than other bidding participants, and Y is determined as a successful tenderer or it cannot be determined as a successful tenderer as it is, it shall be consulted by e-mail with data relating to the successful bid price, and the successful bid price shall be determined by determining the successful bid price at a higher price than that of the estimate submitted by Y with a view to compensating damage to the amount adjustment, and a new written estimate shall be submitted at the price determined for consultation as above.

(2) 그러나 다음과 같은 2, 3차 통합입찰의 실행예산, 입찰참여업체의 견적금액 등에 의하면, 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 달리 2, 3차 통합입찰의 경우에는 Y이 실행예산의 범위 내에서 최저가의 견적금액을 제출함에 따라 최저가 업체인 Y을 납품업체로 선정하는 데에 아무런 장애가 없어 납품업체로 선정된 것으로 보인다.가 2차 통합입찰의 경우 ①) 조명 부분의 실행예산은 1,830,596,000원인데, Y은 실행예산 내에서 합계 1,591,081,000원[ 서산CX 763,421,000원, @ CU오피스텔 414,986,000원, ⓒ 남양주EA 412,674,000원(472,007,500원으로 증액)]의 견적금액을 제출하여, 다른 입찰참여업체인 CQ(1,919,854,300원), DZ(2,022,457,000원), CY(2,163,496,000원)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였고, ② 타일 부분의 실행예산은 3,016,656,200원인데, Y은 실행예산 내에서 합계 2,501,335,600원[① EB오피스텔 237,914,000원, Ⓒ 공주EC아파트 377,816,000원, Ⓒ 용인ED아파트 546,626,000원, ② 남양주EA 529,950,100원(547,947,300원으로 증액), 용인EE아파트 809,029,500원 (836,227,500원으로 증액)]의 견적금액을 제출하여, 다른 입찰참여업체인 AH(2,589,056,020원), DA, DB, DW(각 2,628,654,200원), CS(불참)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였으며, ③ 홈네트워크의 실행예산은 3,546,039,516원인데, Y은 실행예산 내에서 합계 3,445,508,200원[⑦ 서산CX 1,293,890,000원, ④ CU오피스텔 695,278,000원 (650,558,000원으로 감액), Ⓒ P아파트 915,341,200원(660,666,200원으로 감액), ② 남양주EA 540,999,000원(672,014,000원으로 증액)]의 견적금액을 제출하여, 다른 입찰참여업체인 AL(3,511,982,990원), CO(3,615,847,120원)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였다.나 3차 통합입찰의 경우 ①) 조명 부분의 실행예산은 1,828,191,100원인데, Y은 실행예산 내에서 합계 1,460,454,900원의 견적금액을 제출하여, 다른 입찰참여업체인 CY(1,653,005,000원), DZ(1,854,069,000원)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였고, ②) 타일 부분의 실행예산은 3,202,957,100원인데, Y은 실행예산 내에서 합계 3,072,700,600원 [①⑦ 파주EF 아파트 437,458,000원, ① 대구R아파트 232,686,500원, 대구EG아파트 662,060,000원, ² 은평EH주택재건축 476,807,000원, ① 창원EI아파트 553,792,000원 (553,425,405원으로 감액), ④ 울산EJ아파트 709,897,100원]의 견적금액을 제출하여, 다른 입찰참여업체인 DB(3,392,577,650원), DA(3,410,233,050원), CS(3,494,515,090원), DW(3,731,835,415원), AH(3,971,371,000원)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였으며, ③ 홈네트워크의 실행예산은 3,925,375,400원인데, Y은 실행예산 내에서 합계 3,160,848,000원의 견적금액을 제출하여, 다른 입찰참여업체인 AL(3,246,125,300원), CO(3,277,993,500원)보다 낮은 견적금액을 제출하였다.

(3) Meanwhile, even though Defendant F sent e-mail to BA, an employee of the Y, accompanied by a comparison table of comparison and a comprehensive control table on the estimate of the materials of the Home Network, it seems that the said e-mail had already been sent after Y was selected as a successful bidder in the third integrated bidding around February 9, 2017. In light of the e-mail’s content, etc., “A request for submission of a quotation as shown in the attachment,” the said e-mail was already selected as a supplier of the third integrated bidding process, so that the e-mail had already been sent after G’s process unit price verification (NEGO) procedure commenced.

(4) 2 and 3rd integrated tendering, Y's estimated price increase or decrease is difficult to view it as an act detrimental to the fairness of tendering since Y is selected as a supplier after the commencement of unit price verification procedure. Furthermore, Y is not involved in the process of selecting Y as a successful tenderer; 5,33,500 won in the case of YY in the second integrated tendering; 45,195,200 won in the case of other days; 168,380,000 won in the case of Home Network; 366,595 won in the case of the third integrated tendering; 360,595 won in the case of the third integrated tendering; 30,000 won in the bid price increase or decrease; 360,595 won in the bid price increase or decrease; 30,000 won in the tender price increase or decrease in the 2nd integrated tendering; 30,500,719,370,390,79,70, 39,70, 50, etc.

5. Judgment on the defendants and prosecutor's assertion of misconception of facts about violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and occupational

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

G and N are responsible for the purchase of finished materials at the construction site, at the product development team, the estimated budget team, and the external purchase team. G acquires N around 2008 and takes over N around 2012 under the organization of U.S. from around 2012, U or Z concurrently held the office of representative director of N, and the external purchase team in charge of the lower and the purchase of materials has been managed in the integrated purchase room under the U.S. direct jurisdiction. The product development team and the estimated budget team have been in charge of the overall management and supervision as the final approving authority.

As a person in charge of the integrated purchase office, Defendant A is in charge of the overall management and approval of the purchase of necessary materials at the construction site of G and N. Defendant C and D are in charge of the overall affairs of the purchase of materials after receiving a report from the working-level officer on the overall affairs of the purchase of materials from G and N as the external purchase team leader, and Defendant E and F are in charge of the affairs of the purchase of materials from G and N as the deputy head or director of the external purchase team.

Meanwhile, in purchasing G and N's product development team, estimate budget team, and open name and home network system, which are finished at the lowest competitive bidding, the person in charge of the product development team shall select optimal materials in consideration of various designs, quality, and budget, and the person in charge of the estimated budget team shall set the budget necessary for purchasing the materials within an appropriate scope in consideration of market price, performance unit, price fluctuation, etc. The person in charge of the external purchase team shall be responsible for the fair bid process by having the supplier participate in the bidding process, and the person in charge of the external purchase team shall be responsible for maximizes the interests of G and N by purchasing the materials at the lowest price and by selecting the supplier as the supplier, etc., except in extenuating circumstances. The defendants are aware that there are these duties to the person in charge of the material purchase business of G and N.

1) Main facts charged

Although Defendant B’s Y’s 96% of the sales depends on the supply of the lighting and home network system to G and N, there was no employee in charge of the affairs related to lighting and home network system. The lighting is supplied to G and N as it is, and all the affairs, such as the selection of products, on-site delivery, installation, defect repair, etc., are in charge of AK and AL’s employees. Therefore, there was no special role of Y et al. in bidding to select suppliers of lighting and home network systems between G and N.

그럼에도 피고인 B은 G과 N의 자재 구매 업무 담당 임직원들에게 T그룹 회장 AQ과의 친분관계를 과시하며 자신의 요구를 들어주지 않을 경우 회사 내 불이익이 있을 것 같은 태도를 보여 거절하지 못하게 하고, 담당 임원이나 팀장들로 하여금 상품개발 팀, 견적 예산팀, 외주구매팀 업무 담당자들에게 피고인 B의 요구를 들어주라는 취지로 지시하게 하기도 하였으며, 특히 2015년 9월경 AO 시사 프로그램 'AP'에서 AQ과 자신의 관계에 대해 의혹을 제기하는 내용이 방송되어 피고인 A이 Y과의 거래를 단절하려 하였음에도 계속 납품할 수 있게 해달라고 요구하여 피고인 A으로 하여금 피고인 C, D, E, F에게 Y을 낙찰시키되 다수의 현장을 시기별로 묶어 통합 입찰하여 낙찰금액을 일정 수준으로 조정하도록 지시하게 하기도 하였다. 피고인 A, C, D, E, F은 피고인 B의 위와 같은 요구에 따라 조명 · 홈네트워크시스템 자재를 선정함에 있어 Y 등이 제공하는 제품에 한정하여 이를 선정하고, 선정된 자재를 구매함에 있어 G과 N의 이익에 부합하는 방법을 배제한 채 Y 등을 납품업체로 미리 정하고, 납품업체 선정을 위한 입찰에 있어 Y 등을 낙찰자로 정한 후 입찰절차와 결과를 꿰맞추기나 낙찰금액을 사전에 협의하여 결정하는 등 Y 등이 아무런 경쟁 없이 자신의 이익에 부합하게 조명 · 홈네트워크시스템을 납품할 수 있도록 하였다.

As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F violated the occupational duty that should maximize company interests in dealing with the affairs related to the purchase of materials from G and N, and thereby put Y, etc. which do not play a substantial role in the supply of materials into an intermediate enterprise for the supply of lighting and home network system, and Defendant B, despite being aware that granting the status of an exclusive supplier to Y, etc. which do not play a special role, violates the provisions on the purchase of materials, requests Defendant A, etc. to select Y, etc. as a supplier, and request Y, etc. to be selected as a lighting and home network system supplier for a long period, and Y, etc. to produce and store the above materials to supply and install them at the construction sites from G and N, thereby obtaining profits equivalent to the difference between the supply price of Y, etc. and the supply price of Y and AL for Y, etc.

Ultimately, from around 208 to October 2017, the Defendants conspired to have Y et al. obtain a total of KRW 12,809,595,392 as shown in the [Attachment Table 7] of the lower judgment from around 2008 to October 2017, and caused property damage equivalent to KRW 8,277,383,375 in G, and KRW 4,532,212,017 in N. 2).

피고인 B이 운영하는 Y은 매출의 96%를 G과 N에 대한 타일 · 조명 · 홈네트워크시스템 납품에 의존하는 회사이다. 그럼에도 피고인 B은 G과 N의 자재 구매 업무 담당 임직원들에게 T그룹 회장 AQ과의 친분관계를 과시하며 자신의 요구를 들어주지 않을 경우 회사 내 불이익이 있을 것 같은 태도를 보여 거절하지 못하게 하고, 담당 임원이나 팀장들로 하여금 상품개발 팀, 견적 예산팀, 외주구매팀 업무 담당자들에게 피고인 B의 요구를 들어주라는 취지로 지시하게 하기도 하였으며, 특히 2015년 9월경 AO 시사 프로그램 'AP'에서 AQ과 자신의 관계에 대해 의혹을 제기하는 내용이 방송되어 피고인 A이 Y과 거래를 단절하려 하였음에도, 계속 납품할 수 있게 해달라고 요구하여 피고인 A으로 하여금 피고인 C, D, E, F에게 Y을 낙찰시키되 다수의 현장을 시기별로 묶어 통합 입찰하여 낙찰금액을 일정 수준으로 조정하도록 지시하도록 하였다. 피고인 A, C, D, E, F은 피고인 B의 위와 같은 요구에 따라 1, 2, 3차 통합입찰절차를 통하여 홈네트워크시스템 자재를 구매함에 있어 G과 N의 이익에 부합하는 방법을 배제한 채 Y 등을 납품업체로 미리 정하고, 납품업체 선정을 위한 입찰에 있어 위와 같이 Y을 낙찰자로 정한 후 입찰절차와 결과를 꿰맞추거나 낙찰금액을 협의하여 결정하는 등 Y이 실질적 경쟁 없이 자신의 이익에 부합하게 홈네트워크시스템을 납품할 수 있도록 하였다.

As such, Defendant A, C, D, and F violated the occupational duty that should maximize company interests in dealing with the affairs related to N's purchase of materials, and thereby purchasing the home network system without substantial competition from Y. Defendant B, despite being aware that granting the status of an exclusive supplier of materials to Y is in violation of the material purchase business regulations and is contrary to G and N's interests, requested Defendant A, etc. to select Y as a supplier, while requesting Defendant A, etc. to supply the home network system manufactured by Y to G and N, thereby causing unexpected property damage to G and N.

Ultimately, from January 2016 to October 2017, the Defendants conspired to obtain Y from January 2016, and caused Y to G (Defendant A, B, C, E), N (Defendant A, B, D, and F) property damage from each amount.

B. Judgment on this part of the primary facts charged

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances based on the facts established in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, with the purport that it is difficult to readily conclude that the G Defendants entered into a contract with Y with the awareness that the Defendants included Y, which did not have a substantial role in the supply contract, in the middle of the supply contract, or caused property damage to G and N.

A) ① In the case of a construction company which establishes a model house for apartment construction and sales in lots, it appears that the company is in an area where the company can make self-decision by employing individual staff members to be in charge of the relevant work and professionally supplying the same finishes, such as others, lighting, etc. ② before the construction of a model house through BF, Y submitted a lighting proposal and sampling in the name of G, etc. before the construction of a model house, and reflected changes in terms of content at the time of the actual revision or delivery, reflecting the demand of the lighting proposal and the materials trading with G, etc. in the process of the construction of a model house. In light of the fact that there is a problem in the construction site, Y is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants traded the quantity of the home network needed by G, etc., or distributed it to AL if it is received at the construction site, or that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants were in charge of the final demand for defect repair, etc. by visiting and selling the products to the agency.

B) ① Since Y was designated as the spectrum of G, etc. for a long time and repeatedly traded with G, etc., and trust was formed without problems in the process of supply. The Defendants were aware of the collusion generated in the bidding process with G, etc., even though they had previously been aware of the collusion generated in the bidding process, they would have concluded price negotiations to enter into within the scope of the implementation budget set out in the estimate budget based on cumulative performance rate, etc. ② As long as G Defendants concluded contracts within the scope of the implementation budget as above through repeated price negotiations, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants concluded contracts with G, etc. with the awareness that the implementation budget of materials supplied by Y is considerably favorable to Y, unless it is acknowledged that the Defendants were aware that the implementation budget of materials supplied by Y was considerably favorable to Y, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants concluded contracts with G, etc., with the awareness that there were property damage, and that there was considerable portion of the integrated cost of such materials supplied by the Defendants prior to the implementation of the tender contract between G and N, etc., in light of the fact that the Defendants were not aware of the aforementioned portion of the average budget.

C) (1) As long as Y is indicated in the pepepe list at the time of construction of a model house, as long as AK had no choice but to be supplied with products registered with the design at each site, the negotiating power of the Defendants was considerably deteriorated. (2) HK appears to have been in a position similar to the Y’s subordinate or factory depending on the increase in the quantity of supply to G, etc. in the course of its trade with Y, and it was difficult for the Defendants to directly supply lighting to G, etc. without any proposal for requesting supply only through Y. As such, it is difficult for G to conclude that the Defendants had no choice but to enter into a contract with Y on the site of the pepepe, etc., (3) since it appears that the negotiation body that conforms to the design requirement of AK was manufactured through the YK, and since it seems difficult for the Defendants to have concluded a contract with G to conclude that there is considerable difference between the design and installation location of the unit price, etc., and thus, it is difficult for them to conclude that there was a substantial difference between G and other companies.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should be convicted with evidence of probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767, Apr. 15, 2005).

In light of the records, the court below's decision of not guilty of the facts charged in this part based on the above determination of evidence is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

C. Judgment on this part of the preliminary charges

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court convicted all of the ancillary charges of this part of the adopted evidence.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances, which are recognized by the court below and the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly admitted, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to deem that at the time of the tender for the home network of the first, second, and third integrated bidding, the Defendants acquired the amount of property benefits by allowing the Defendants to supply the home network without substantial competition, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendants suffered property loss in the amount of G and N, and that there was no other reasonable doubt. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is with merit.

A) As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ selection of the lowest price as a successful bidder within the scope of the implementation budget of G and N with respect to the Home Network tender among the two and the third integrated tenderings constituted an act of interference with bidding. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants, without substantial competition, had the Home Network supplied the Home Network.

B) Next, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ act of interfering with the tender of the Home Network among the primary integrated tendering procedure may be acknowledged, but in light of the following circumstances, the G Defendants were aware that at the time of the tender, the G Defendants would inflict property damage on G and N. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants had the intent of breach of trust.

(1) The home network’s implementation budget of the first integrated bidding was KRW 3,814,430,00, and Y submitted an estimate of KRW 4,329,428,00, which is about 113.5% of the implementation budget, and AL submitted a higher amount of KRW 4,416,498,00. The Defendants negotiated with Y over several occasions in order to reduce the amount of Y’s estimate. During that process, around March 2016, Y made efforts to reduce the amount of Y’s estimate by delivering the position that 80% of the implementation budget. Accordingly, the Defendants were bound to re-tender in light of the fact that Y’s implementation budget was reduced by KRW 1,35,929,00, and that the amount of Y’s implementation budget was below KRW 83.72%,193,90,90,000 of the implementation budget.

Meanwhile, according to the "integrated bidding condition" as to the first integrated bidding, G Defendants' investigation results show that the average price for the supply of AL products is about 60.24-6.75% compared to the implementation budget by the field of the first integrated bidding, but the net profit by the price is about 3-5% (the "integrated bidding status" is about 64.54-77% compared to the implementation budget by the field of the other companies, and the above price is about 64.54-7% compared to the annual unit price by the field of the project. The above price is 3-5% compared to the annual unit price per unit price per the field of the project. In the investigation agency and the court below, Y appears to the purport that "AL participates in the bidding with 510% Ma in the annual unit price bid with other construction companies, 1-2% in the case of the lowest bidding price, and 1-2% in the case of the tender, the supply price by the first integrated bidding price or the price per unit of the tender seems to be different.

(2) (1) At the original court, AY, the head of the business division of AL, seems to have been engaged in an agency's direct contract except where the agency has no capacity to perform its business and contract. It is impossible to maintain the agency if it comes in such manner. Even if AL is low, 15 sites which were previously permitted will not participate in the bidding, and KR, the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the Vice Minister of the AL's operating division, could have higher price competitiveness than Y, but it is more likely that the relationship with Y was reduced than 10 years from the date of the original court's order to the effect that 20 years from the date of the supply of the G Home network, and 10 years from the date of the original court's order to the effect that 20 years from the date of the supply of the G Home network, 2 years from the date of the supply of the G Home network and 3 years from the date of the original decision, and 3 years from the date of the original decision's order to the effect that 8 years from the supply of the G Home network and 2.

6. Judgment as to the misconception of facts about the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by Defendant B and Prosecutor

A. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (part 2 of "AF-related crimes" listed in attached Table 1 of the crime sight of the original trial)

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

On March 19, 2009, the Defendant withdrawn 160,000,000 won from the W Account as set out in the No. 2, as shown in the AF-related Crime Table 1 attached to the lower judgment, and embezzled it by arbitrarily consuming it without paying it to AF.

2) The judgment of the court below

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the record, etc., the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant embezzled KRW 160,000,000 that was withdrawn from the W Account on March 19, 200 as the credit repayment for AF.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

If the representative director of a corporation withdraws and uses the company's money, and fails to present evidentiary documents on the grounds for withdrawal and the use of the money, and fails to provide reasonable explanation to obtain the payment of the money, such money may be inferred to withdraw and use the company's money for personal purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6387, Dec. 26, 2003; 2004Do3532, Sept. 24, 2004; 2013Do12410, Jan. 23, 2014).

Recognition by integrating the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s withdrawal of KRW 160 million from the victim W’s account for the repayment of credit to AF, and the Defendant paid only KRW 100 million to AF, and the remainder of KRW 60 million is not paid to AF, and the Defendant’s voluntary consumption and embezzlement is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted all of the charges. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

A) On March 19, 200, WW’s credit purchase amount of KRW 160,000 on the credit purchase amount of KRW 160,000 for DI (the trade name was changed to AF; hereinafter the same shall apply). DefendantB withdrawn KRW 160,00,000 from W’s account on the same day. However, “DI payment details” prepared by W’s employee did not include the details on which W paid KRW 160,00,000 to AF on March 19, 209. The head of the credit account sales amount of AF does not include the details on payment of KRW 160,000,000 for the AF’s account, but does not include the details on payment of KRW 160,000,000 for the AF’s account at that time, the reasons and amount of KRW 160,000 for the AF’s deposit and the supply amount of KRW 160,000 for the AF.

B) Meanwhile, the credit account ledger of the DI states that the credit account was repaid KRW 100 million from W on March 23, 2009. On March 20, 2009 and March 24, 2009, the balance of AF’s DJ account increased by KRW 100 million and KRW 100 million was deposited in W on March 23, 2009. However, the account ledger of WW credit purchase amount omitted the details of payment of KRW 100 million to DI on March 23, 2009.

C) Therefore, the possibility that Defendant B would have been paid to AF on March 2009, out of KRW 160,000,000, which was withdrawn by Defendant B from W account on March 19, 2009 as the grounds for withdrawal, cannot be ruled out, but there is no evidence supporting that the remaining KRW 60,000,000 was paid to AF pursuant to the said reasons for withdrawal.

D) Defendant B alleged to the effect that the above amount of credit purchase was repaid to AF representative AF KRW 10,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 30, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 30, KRW 200, KRW 30, KRW 30, KRW 200, KRW 30, KRW 20, KRW 30, KRW 200, KRW 30, KRW 30, KRW 10, KRW 20, KRW 30, KRW 20, KRW 30, KRW 20, KRW 10, KRW 30, KRW 20, KRW 300, KRW 20, KRW 30, 200, KRW 30, 209.

E) Ultimately, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, even though Defendant B, the representative of W, withdrawn KRW 160,00,000 from W’s account as the cause of withdrawal for the payment of the credit purchase amount to “AF” and used it, the remainder of KRW 60,000,000,000 were not presented with evidence as to the place of use, and without any reasonable explanation as to the place of use, the above KRW 60,000,000 cannot be presumed to have been used for personal purposes by Defendant B’s withdrawal of W amount with the intent of unlawful acquisition. As such, Defendant B cannot be exempt from the liability for the crime of occupational embezzlement.

B. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts

1) Summary of the revised facts charged

Defendant B operated the Victim W from October 200 to April 2010, and took overall charge of the management and enforcement of the company’s funds. Defendant B, from June 18, 2008 to October 20, 2008, accounts as “the payment of the credit purchase amount to AK” as stated in the No. 1 to 19 of the “Crimes related to AK” in the [Attachment 207,791,170] falsely accounts as “the payment of the credit purchase amount to AK” and embezzled the total sum of 207,791,170 won by withdrawing the difference from the Victim W account, and then arbitrarily consumes it.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly selected and examined evidence, Defendant B may fully recognize the fact that the sum of KRW 207,791,170 was embezzled from the victim W’s account as shown in this part of the facts charged, and thus, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

A) CH, who is an employee in charge of W’s accounting, indicated only the portion of the value-added tax in the document “W-AK settlement” in the court below’s judgment, is both processed transactions. The processing transaction part also accounts for AK as the repayment of credit purchase amount in the process of accounting. Of the documents “purchase (+)” in the year 2008 settlement details, the processing transaction was organized. If W receives a false tax invoice from AK, CH paid only the amount equivalent to the value-added tax and withdrawn from the W account in cash, etc., and paid the corporate tax to AK by calculating the amount to be borne by the corporate tax, and CH stated to the effect that the Defendant issued a false tax invoice and embezzled the false tax invoice.

B) The document “W-AK Settlement Details” prepared by CH is written in the column of each tax invoice, written by W in 208, ① 100,26,50 won of supply price on January 31, 2008; ② 100,026,50 won of supply price on April 30, 2008; ② 100,06,006,500 won of value on April 30, 2008; ③ 150,078,150 won of supply price on 30,07,815, and ④ 15,07,815 won of value-added tax on 31, 2008; and all of them are written in the column of each tax invoice.

The above documents state that the sum of KRW 100,265,00, 100, 100, 265,000, 100, 265,000, 7 or 12 of the supply value of the tax invoice as of January 31, 2008, was used for the payment of KRW 100,265,000, 7 or 12 of the above tax invoice as of April 30, 2008, the supply value of KRW 100,06,60, 400 (=200,30,265,000 + KRW 100,000 + KRW 100,06,000 for each of the above tax invoice supply value as of April 30, 2008) was written in the list of KRW 96,50,400,606,000 for the corporate tax imposed on each of the above tax invoice supply value.

C) Even in the column of “purchase (+purchase) of the documents of “208 settlement details” written by CH, CH, the portion indicated as sound records on January 31, 2008, KRW 100,065,00 on April 30, 2008, KRW 150,078,000 on November 30, 2008, KRW 150,078, and KRW 100,052,100 on December 31, 2008, it is consistent with the documents of “W-AK settlement details”. Moreover, the portion indicated as sound records from January 11, 2008 to October 20, 208, which is relatively less consistent with that of the documents of “W-AK settlement details”, but it reflects the difference between the amount deposited in the A-A-K account and the A-A-K account from October 20, 208 to June 208.

D) Defendant B asserts to the effect that the amount stated in the sequence 1 through 12 among the “AK-related criminal acts” in the attached Form of the trial room is not indicated in the “purchase (+Purchase)” column of the documents “208 settlement details”, and that the said documents are not reliable, and that all of them were paid to BN, the representative of the AK.

(1) However, as seen earlier, the phrase “purchase (+purchase)” of the “208 settlement statement” includes the supply value of the processed tax invoice. The amount stated in the Nos. 1 through 12 above is reflected in KRW 100,265,000 on Jan. 31, 2008, which is the above supply value, and KRW 100,065,00 on Apr. 30, 2008, and KRW 100,000 on Apr. 30, 2008, BN clearly states that “the fact that the Defendant had not received this portion of money in cash from the Defendant B” in the court of original instance, and CH also has not paid the transaction price in cash in the case of purchase transaction. Both CH was paid by the Defendant B by account transfer. The fact that the Defendant B directly deemed the bank business and paid the transaction price to the Plaintiff for the first time is merely the first time. In light of the fact that the Defendant stated in the above statement to the purport that it cannot be accepted.”

E) ① The above amount of KRW 29,026,50 was withdrawn from W’s account on June 18, 2008 to KRW 207,412,800 out of KRW 207,613,700 (=229,026,500 - 207,412,800) was not deposited. ② The amount of KRW 208,600 out of the supply value of KRW 10,265,000, KRW 200, KRW 2067, KRW 208, KRW 300, KRW 207, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 206, KRW 3000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,500, KRW 200, KRW 206, KRW 305,000 on the supply value of KRW 20, KRW 305,008.

F) Defendant B asserted to the effect that the phrase “21,613,700 won” listed in 16 No. 16 of the table of crime set forth in the [Attachment 1] of the court below is divided into “19,00,000 won” listed in 17 of the [Attachment 1] and “2,613,700 won” listed in 17 of the [Attachment 1] of the court below’s “AK-related crime,” and Defendant B’s amendment to this part of the facts charged constitutes an additional indictment. However, since the facts charged in the original facts charged and the revised facts charged are identical with the basic facts and are related with the general

7. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the part not guilty (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds for appeal) of the judgment of the court below is without merit, it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Among the judgment below, the part of the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio, and there are some grounds for appeal against the guilty part of the defendants and the prosecutor's appeal against the part concerning the crime of false sentencing. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's appeal against the

Criminal facts

이 법원이 인정하는 범죄사실은, 원심판결의 제7면 11행부터 제8면 17행까지 부분을 "4) 1차 통합입찰 관련 범행(피고인들 모두) 피고인 B은 2015년 9월경 AO 'AP'에 본건 관련 내용이 방송되고, 2015년 11월경 본건 고발이 되는 등 G 및 N과의 거래 관련 문제가 불거지자 더 이상 거래할 수 없게 될 것을 우려하여 피고인 A에게 기존에 자신이 제출한 제품이 마감재로 선정된 현장에 자재를 납품하게 해달라고 요구하였고, 피고인 A은 위 요구를 수락하여 피고인 C, D, E, F에게 별지 [표 4] 기재와 같이 G 및 N의 다수 현장을 시기별로 묶어 통합 입찰을 실시하되, 참여업체들이 제출한 견적금액과 무관하게 Y을 낙찰자로 결정하고 Y이 제출한 견적금액을 적정하게 수정하도록 지시하고 피고인 C, D, E, F은 이에 응하여 1차 통합입찰에서 Y을 납품업체로 낙찰시키기로 공모하였다. 이에 따라 피고인 B은 1차 통합입찰 계약일 전인 2016년 1월경 이미 견적서를 제출하였으나, 일부 현장의 경우 그 견적가가 G 및 N의 실행예산을 초과하거나 입찰에 참여한 타 업체보다 높은 금액으로 응찰하는 등 Y을 그대로 낙찰자로 정하거나 견적가를 그대로 낙찰금액으로 할 수 없는 상황에 이르렀다. 그러자 피고인들은 각 현장의 낙찰자를 Y으로 정해 놓고 낙찰가격을 조정하기 위해 직접 만나거나 낙찰가격 관련 자료를 이메일로 주고받는 등으로 협의하였고, 별지 [표 4] 기재 각 계약일자 직전에 위와 같이 협의 결정한 가격으로 각 견적서를 다시 작성하여 제출하였음에도 피고인 A, C, D, E, F은 마치 정상적인 경쟁 입찰절차를 거쳐 Y이 최저가 응찰업체로 낙찰된 것처럼 관련 서류를 꾸미고 납품업체 선정 품의서에 결재하는 방법으로 Y을 납품업체로 선정하였다"로, 제11면 17 내지 20행의 "별지 범죄일람표 1 중 AW 관련 범행 부분, AF 관련 범행 중 순번 제1항, AK 관련 범행 중 순번 제1 내지 18항, 20 내지 24항 및 허위급여 지급 관련 범행 기재와 같이 업무상 보관 중이던 피해자 주식회사 W(이하 'W'이라고 한다) 소유의 자금 합계 2,764,544,434원을 횡령하였다"를 "원심 별지 범죄일람표 1의 'AW 관련 범행' 부분, 'AF 관련 범행' 중 순번 1, 순번 2 중 'W 계좌에서 160,000,000원을 인출한 다음 그중 6천만 원을 AF에 지급하지 않고 임의 소비한 부분', '허위급여 지급 관련 범행' 부분 및 당심 별지 범죄일람표의 'AK 관련 범행' 중 순번 1 내지 19, 21 내지 25 부분 기재와 같이 업무상 보관 중이던 피해자 주식회사 W(이하 'W'이라고 한다) 소유의 자금 합계 2,824,544,434원을 횡령하였 다"로, 원심 별지 범죄일람표 1의 "AF 관련 범행" 중 순번 2의 '판단'란의 "무죄"를 "6,000만 원 유죄, 1억 원 무죄"로, 끝부분의 '유죄 판단 금액 합계'란의 "2,764,544,434 원"을 "2,824,544,434원"으로, '무죄판단 금액 합계'란의 "684,593,120원"을 "624,593,120원"으로, 원심 별지 범죄일람표 1 중 "AK 관련 범행” 부분을 당심 별지 범죄일람표로 각 변경하고, 원심판결의 제8면 18행부터 제11면 6행까지 부분을 삭제하는 외에는 원심판결의 해당란 기재와 같으므로 형사소송법 제369조에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence of the facts constituting the crime acknowledged by this court is as follows: (a) except for the addition of “part of the legal statements of KR and KRB by the witnesses of the first instance trial” after the 12th page 13 of the judgment of the court below, it is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A, C, D, E, and F: Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment): Defendant B: Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Tender, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Articles 356 and 355(1) (Joint Embezzlement of Occupational Embezzlement; Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes against Defendant A, C, D, E, and F] Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed by the obstruction of bidding related to bidding of other days among the primary integrated bidding with the largest criminal situation for Defendant A, D, E, and F)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, C, D, E, F: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant A’s crime of this case requires strict punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) Defendant A’s executive officer in charge of the external purchase of G and N, in collusion with Defendant C, D, E, F, andY’s representative Defendant B, who is the employees of G and N, which caused the fairness of bidding by fraudulent means; (b) the crime of this case was committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time; and (c) the scale of the crime was not significant.

However, considering the fact that Defendant A has no criminal record at all, Defendant A does not seem to have obtained economic benefits from the instant crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant argument, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (1).

2. The instant crime committed by Defendant B, as the representative of Defendant BY, has been conducted in collusion with Defendant A, C, D, E, and F, who is an executive officer or employee of G and N, thereby impairing the fairness of bidding by deceptive means. The Defendant B’s withdrawal of the funds of the victim company, as the representative of the victim W andY, by means of issuing a tax invoice for processing, preparing false books, and paying false wages, etc., is not good in the nature of the instant crime, and embezzled by arbitrarily using them for personal purposes. In light of the fact that the instant crime was committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time, the scale of the relevant crime is not large, and the amount of embezzlement is large amount, strict punishment against Defendant B is necessary.

However, considering the fact that Defendant B has no specific criminal power in addition to a fine once, the fact that the Defendant returned the amount equivalent to the embezzlement amount to W and appears to have been restored to a considerable portion of damage, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court according to the sentencing guidelines of the sentencing committee.

3. The instant crime committed by Defendant C, D, E, and F requires strict punishment against Defendant C, D, E, and F, when considering the following: (a) Defendants C, D, E, and F conspired with G and N’s external purchase team employees, who are officers of G and N, thereby undermining the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means; (b) the instant crime was committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time; and (c) the scale of the instant crime was not certain.

However, Defendant C, E without any criminal records, Defendant D, and F have no specific criminal records other than fines once, and Defendant C, D, E, and F do not seem to have obtained economic benefits from the instant crime. In addition, Defendant C, D, E, F’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., taking into account the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as the sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission, the sentence is somewhat somewhat exceeding the scope of recommendation sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set forth in the Supreme Court Decision 3) and the sentence is set as the order.

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the charge on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) and the violation of occupational breach of trust against the Defendants is identical to that of the above 4-B(3)(A), 5-A(1), 5-5-A(2)(C), 5-2(2), and 5-3(2) as stated in the above 4-B(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) and Article 58(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since this constitutes a case where there is no proof of each crime, the court acquitted the Defendants pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and publicly announced the summary of the judgment on

2. From among the facts of Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the summary of the facts charged in Part 2 of the "AF-related crime" of the attached Table 1 of the original judgment is the same as that of the above 6-A-1. As seen in the above 6-A-2 of the above 6-A-2, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act since it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Act

Chief Judge Park Jong-chul

Judges Kim Ge-tae-ho, whose name and seal are impossible.

The presiding judge

Judges

Judge Lee Jin-hun

1. 1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to three years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria; and

(a) Interference with each tender;

[Determination of Types] Type 1 (Interference with General Auction and Bidding) for Interference with Business Affairs

[Special Esponsor] Where a criminal act has been committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(b) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months to three years; or

2) 1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months from June to 11 March

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria; and

(a) A crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (not less than KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion)

【Special Convicted Person】 substantial company, one company (reduction elements) or one of the methods of receiving crimes is very poor (Aggravated factor).

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years to 5 years of imprisonment

(b) Interference with bidding;

[Determination of Types] Type 1 (Interference with General Auction and Bidding) for Interference with Business Affairs

[Special Esponsor] Where a criminal act has been committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(c) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years to six years;

3) 1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to three years.

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria; and

(a) Interference with each tender;

[Determination of Types] Type 1 (Interference with General Auction and Bidding) for Interference with Business Affairs

[Special Esponsor] Where a criminal act has been committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(b) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months to three years; or