All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (the Defendant A’s fine of KRW 15 million, and the Defendant Samsung C&T Co., Ltd.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant Samsung C&T, by promoting fair and free competition with the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Construction Industry for the purpose of facilitating the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry, is likely to be criticized as impairing the basic purpose of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act for the purpose of encouraging creative business activities, protecting consumers, and promoting the balanced development of the national economy.

However, each construction contract of this case was evaluated by giving a specific weight to design score and price score in the internship contract method (design contract method) and then the highest score was determined as the successful bidder. Each of the collusion of this case was conducted only for the price portion, and it seems that there was a relatively low competition in the design area where the same or higher weight (50-5%) is given in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

A huge penalty surcharge was imposed on the Defendant Company on the ground of the bid collusion in the instant case.

(H) Penalty surcharge of KRW 9.877 billion in relation to bid collusion for construction works, and penalty surcharge of KRW 16.234 billion in relation to O’s bid collusion for construction works). The Defendant Company seems to have been making efforts with respect to past wrong practices.

Considering these circumstances and various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant company is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant company and the prosecutor's argument about sentencing of the defendant company are discussed.