[1] Whether the crime of interference with a tender constitutes a crime (affirmative), and whether the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method in addition to the determination of price, is also included in the act of interference with a tender (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a certain bidder makes a tender at a price lower than that of a specific company that is agreed to receive a successful tender without complying with the initial agreement for the contract being awarded by the bidder when there was a collusion between the bidders to be awarded a successful tender (affirmative), whether the crime of interference with the tender is established

[3] The case holding that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of interference with bidding in a case where the defendant participated in the collusion on bidding for the production and installation of the voice inducing machine for the visually disabled, ordered by the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation, but bid at a price lower than that of the specific company that he agreed to receive the successful bid without complying with the initial agreement

[1] The crime of interference with bidding does not require that the outcome of a crime is practically unfair, but includes not only the act of determining the price, but also the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method.

[2] If other bidders, including a specific company, participated in a tendering procedure under the initial agreement, but some bidders, who participated in a tendering procedure at a price lower than the specific company that had agreed to receive a successful tendering procedure without complying with the initial agreement for the successful tendering procedure, were to engage in a tendering procedure at a lower price than the specific company that had agreed to receive a successful tendering procedure, such a certain bidders’ act constitutes lawful and fair competition method in that they received a successful tendering procedure through the aforesaid collusion, and therefore, such an act constitutes a violation of interference with tendering procedure.

[3] In a case where the defendant participated in the collusion on the bidding for the production and installation of the voice inducement machine for the visually disabled, ordered by the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation, but he did not follow the initial agreement to receive the successful bid and bid at a lower price than the specific company originally planned to receive the successful bid, the case affirming the judgment below convicting the defendant of the facts charged that the act of the defendant constitutes a obstruction of bidding, and thus, it constitutes a obstruction of

[1] Article 315 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 315 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 315 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3924 Decided September 26, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2121), Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8498 Decided June 9, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1302), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8070 Decided May 31, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1004), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5037 Decided May 29, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 949)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-hwan

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No4076 Decided April 16, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The obstruction of bidding does not require the actual appearance of the outcome as a dangerous crime, and such an act includes not only the determination of the price, but also the act that harms the lawful and fair competition method (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3924, Sept. 26, 2003). Meanwhile, in a case where the bidders, including the specific company, participated in the bidding under the initial agreement, but a certain bidder, participated in the bid at a price lower than that of the specific company that was awarded a successful tender without complying with the initial agreement for the successful bid, if the bidders participated in the bid under the first agreement, but a certain bidder participated in the bid at a lower price than that of the specific company that was awarded a successful tender, such an act of some bidders would interfere with the legitimate and fair competition method in that they were awarded a successful tender by such collusion. Accordingly, such an act of some bidders constitutes

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the defendant, the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the non-indicted 2, the representative director of the non-indicted 5 corporation, and the non-indicted 6 as the director of the non-indicted 7, and the non-indicted 2 manufactured and sold the voice inducement machine for the visually disabled while operating each of the above companies. ② The defendant, the non-indicted 2, 4, and 6 were awarded a contract for the bidding of this case on July 2005, and the non-indicted 3 paid the remaining 10 million won to the non-indicted 3 corporation, and the non-indicted 3 was awarded a bid bid in order from the next bidding, but the defendant refused the bid and did not reach an agreement, ③ the non-indicted 1 corporation's request on August 22, 2005, which was the preceding day of the bidding of this case, and the non-indicted 6 corporation's request on August 22, 2005 that the non-indicted 30 million won or more was finally discussed.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Meanwhile, even if the defendant, who participated in collusion but participated at a lower price than that of the non-indicted 3 corporation without complying with the initial agreement, such defendant's act constitutes a crime of interference with bidding in accordance with the above legal principles. Thus, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is justified in the same purport. Therefore, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)