A. Whether the obstruction of tender constitutes a crime (negative) and the degree of power

(b) The case holding that an act of prohibiting a person who intends to participate in a tender from participating in the tender constitutes a crime of interference with the tender by means of force, such as wrapping the surroundings of the tender place and preventing people from entering the tender;

A. The crime of interference with tendering is established when it harms the fairness of tendering by means of a deceptive scheme, threat of force, or other means. Thus, an act detrimental to the fairness of tendering is sufficient if the act was committed, and there is no need to bring about the actual consequence of impairing the fairness of tendering, and the use of force is not to reach the degree of assault and intimidation.

(b) The case holding that an act of prohibiting a person who intends to participate in a tender from participating in the tender constitutes a crime of interference with the tender by means of force, such as wrapping at the vicinity of the tender place and preventing people from entering the tender;

Article 315 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Do519 delivered on April 30, 1971 (Gong1990, 24888) 74Do717 delivered on July 13, 1976 (Gong1976, 9301) (Gong1976, 9301) B. Supreme Court Decision 90Do202 delivered on October 30, 1990 (Gong190, 2488)

A and 2 others

Defendants

Attorney B

Suwon District Court Decision 91No1653 delivered on November 26, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

The obstruction of bidding is established when it harms the fairness of bidding by means of a deceptive scheme, threat of force, or other means, and there is no need to bring about the result of an actual harm to the fairness of bidding (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do2646, Mar. 8, 198). The use of force does not have to reach the degree of assault and intimidation, such as the theory of action.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the defendants' participation in the bidding by using force, such as preventing the participation of the non-indicted C, etc. who intends to participate in the bidding, and allowing the participation in the bidding by only the non-indicted D and E to participate in the bidding is justified (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2022, Oct. 30, 1990) is justified, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the obstruction of bidding, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.