Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Transmitt. Maz.

Attorney Seo-hee et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2003Da555, 574 (Consolidated) Decided January 9, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

The 66-day detention days prior to the sentence of the lower judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 2 shall be suspended.

The amount of KRW 10,000,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

The charge of interference with bidding among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 2 is acquitted.

Defendant 3 is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

In order to interfere with bidding, there was no fact that Nonindicted Co. 3 did not unlawfully receive a successful tender by drawing lots, and most of the information or documents that he transferred to Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial do not constitute a interference with bidding as stated in the bidding oil. There was no fact that Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial or Nonindicted Co-Defendant 6 demanded or received any pecuniary benefit in return for an illegal solicitation, and (ju) Nonindicted Co-Defendant 3 received a dete ju shop from Nonindicted Co. 3 does not constitute an illegal solicitation.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if it is not so, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the defendant and the circumstances of this case.

B. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

In collusion with Co-Defendant 4, Defendant 1, and 3 of the first instance trial, there was no fact that the right to operate the rest area of this case was unlawfully awarded.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if not, the person who led the entire process of this case is co-defendant 4 of the first instance court, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 3

Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial did not have conspired or participated in the bidding misconduct.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that ① Defendant 1’s non-indicted 1 corporation operated by Defendant 1 from Co-Defendant 4 is entitled to award 10% of the shares of the corporation to be newly established on the face of the way it receives an illegal solicitation, such as allowing Defendant 1 to award a successful bid for the rest area of this case, ② prejudice the fairness of the instant bidding by delivering bid information, such as construction plan and traffic impact assessment report, which is an confidential document, to Co-Defendant 4 in advance, and ② the fact that Defendant 2 received an illegal solicitation from Defendant 2 to the effect that he is able to give business convenience in relation to the operation of rest area. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

However, among the charges of interference with bidding of this case, the part that the above defendant was awarded a bid in the name of Non-Indicted 3 Co. 4, Non-Indicted 6, and Non-Indicted 8 by making the above defendant extract a clear envelope in the bidding process of "the envelope" and let Non-Indicted 8 do so as to be practice in advance, is consistently denied by the above defendant. There are other evidences consistent with the defendant's statement of Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 6, and Non-Indicted 8, but there is no credibility of the statement of Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 6, and the statement of Non-Indicted 8 is not sufficient to conclude that it is guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove it as guilty. However, since the above facts except this are judged that the crime of interference with bidding of this case does not affect the establishment of the crime of interference with bidding of this case and the recognition of the guilty does not actually disadvantage the defendant's defense right, it is recognized as follows without the prosecutor's modification of the indictment (this part of the criminal facts as above.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Considering the following: (a) Defendant 1 did not have the same criminal record; (b) the profits actually acquired by the instant crime are the largest amount of 10,000,000 won; (c) the loss of the workplace was caused by the instant crime; (d) his mistake was de facto divided; and (e) other various matters, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal record, and environment, as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year against Defendant 1 is deemed to be too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable.

B. As to the defendant 2 and 3

(1) The charge of giving property in breach of trust by Defendant 2

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 made an illegal solicitation in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 to the effect that he is given business convenience in relation to the operation of the rest area in this case and granted the right to operate the dele ju shop within the rest area in this case. Thus, this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) Each bid interference and Defendant 3’s giving rise to breach of trust.

As shown in this part of the facts charged, each statement and investigation report at the trial of Co-Defendant 4, Non-Indicted 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the first instance trial or at the court of original trial or at the court of original trial or at the prosecutor's office (hereinafter "the whole evidential documents of the consultation with Defendant 1- Non-Indicted 6, Non-Indicted 4 of 2002, etc."), etc. As such, Defendant 2 and 3 are discussed in the following order, focusing on whether Defendant 4 and Non-Indicted 4 of the first instance trial participated in the act of giving rise to breach of trust by Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial and Defendant 2.

(A) The statement of Co-defendant 4 and Nonindicted 6 in the first instance court

① 제1심 공동피고인 4가 2002. 4. 18. 공소외 3 주식회사, 공소외 2 주식회사, (명칭 생략)농산, (명칭 생략)물산의 재무제표를 받아서 피고인 1에게 검토케 하였다고 진술하고 있으나, 공소외 6의 위 다이어리 중 4월 23일자 기재에는 피고인 1이 재무제표를 검토한 결과 송전양행으로서는 대안이 필요하며, 컨소시엄을 구성할 필요가 있다는 취지로 기재되어 있고, 이 사건 서류심사에서 (명칭 생략)물산은 자격미달로 탈락하였음에 비추어 당시 피고인 1은 송전양행의 서류만을 검토한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 제1심 공동피고인 4는 2002. 5. 28. 공소외 2 주식회사의 사무실에서 4사의 대표이사인 공소외 5( (명칭 생략)농산), 공소외 4( (명칭 생략)물산), 피고인 2, 3과 만나 “아들 공소외 6이 피고인 1과 만나고 있으며 피고인 1이 여러 입찰참가 업체 가운데 우리한테 낙찰받게 하여 주기로 했다”는 취지로 말하였다고 진술하고 있으나(수사기록 284면), 제1심 공동피고인 4는 원심 법정에서 증인으로서 피고인 2의 변호인신문에 대하여 공소외 2 주식회사에서 만난 것은 사실이지만 날짜는 정확하게 기억이 나지 않는다고 진술하고 있고(공판기록 174면), 공소외 2 주식회사의 방문객출입일지에 의하면 2002. 5. 28. 제1심 공동피고인 4나 공소외 5, 공소외 4, 피고인 2가 공소외 2 주식회사를 방문한 바 없는 것으로 기록되어 있으며 공소외 6의 위 다이어리에도 위와 같은 중요한 사실에 대한 기록이 빠져 있는 점(수사기록 471, 472면), ③ 공소외 6과 제1심 공동피고인 4는 검찰 및 원심법정에서 2002. 6. 3. 피고인 2로부터 포기각서를 받았다고 진술하고 있으나 공소외 6의 위 다이어리 2002. 6. 3.자에는 위와 같은 중요한 사항에 대한 기재가 없고, 공소외 6은 나중에 인감증명서를 받았다고 진술하고 있으나 포기각서를 받으면서 인감증명서를 나중에 다시 받는다는 것 역시 선뜻 이해하기 어려운 점, ④ 합의서 및 위임장을 받은 시점에 관하여 2002. 6. 5.이라거나( 제1심 공동피고인 4, 공소외 6의 검찰 진술), 잘 기억하지 못하겠다거나( 제1심 공동피고인 4, 공소외 6의 원심 법정진술), 2002. 6. 25.이라고(원심 법정에서 변호인의 재차의 질문에 대한 공소외 6의 답변진술) 하는 등으로 진술 기회마다 내용이 달라질 뿐 아니라, 제1심 공동피고인 4가 위 합의서를 피고인 3으로부터 받을 당시 교환한 송전양행의 합의서에 첨부된 인감증명서의 발급일자가 2002. 6. 19.로 되어 있으며 합의서에 “낙찰됨에 따라”라는 문구가 기재되어 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 합의서는 적어도 이 사건 입찰이 종료된 2002. 6. 18. 이후에 작성된 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 제1심 공동피고인 4와 공소외 6은 공소외 3 주식회사, 공소외 2 주식회사의 명의만 빌렸을 뿐이고 피고인 1의 도움으로 자신들의 송전양행이 100% 낙찰을 받을 것으로 생각하였다고 진술하고 있으나, 공소외 6의 위 다이어리 2002. 4. 23.자에는 피고인 1의 조언에 따라 컨소시엄을 구성하는 것이 가장 합리적인 방법이라는 취지로 기재되어 있는 점, 그리고 제1심 공동피고인 4의 진술에 의하더라도 공소외 2 주식회사의 입찰보증금은 공소외 2 주식회사가 직접 지불했으며, 나머지 공소외 3 주식회사, (명칭 생략)농산의 입찰보증금도 제1심 공동피고인 4가 자신의 돈으로 지불한 것이 아니라, 피고인 3으로부터 차용하여 지불하였다는 것인데, 그런 마당에 단순히 명의만 빌려 준 회사에게 예상되는 지분의 10%( 제1심 공동피고인 4, 공소외 6의 진술에 의하더라도 수 억 원의 가치가 있다는 것이다)를 준다거나 신설될 법인의 지분 60%를 부여한다는 것은 경우에 따라서는 위 지분회사들이 합작하여 제1심 공동피고인 4로부터 이 사건 휴게소의 운영권을 박탈할 수도 있음에 비추어 100% 낙찰을 받을 자신이 있다면 굳이 여러 업체를 컨소시엄으로 끌어들일 이유가 없다고 할 수 있는 점, ⑥ 제1심 공동피고인 4와 공소외 6은 2002. 6. 17. 피고인 1이 전화를 하여 낙찰표가 들어 있는 봉투 입구에 풀칠을 할 것이니 봉투를 뽑는 연습을 하라고 하여 이러한 사실을 피고인 2, 3에게 전하였다고 진술하고 있으나, 이 사건 입찰의 실무를 담당한 자는 피고인 1이 아니라 공소외 11 과장이었으며, 사용된 봉투는 공소외 11이 직접 구입하여 가지고 있다가 필요시마다 공소외 12 부장에게 직접 전해주었다는 것이고 공개된 장소에서 수회에 걸쳐 추첨을 하였으므로, 공소외 11이나 공소외 12마저 공모하지 않은 이상 특정 봉투에 풀칠이 되기가 불가능한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 제1심 공동피고인 4와 공소외 6은 피고인 2와 피고인 3이 입찰에 들어가기 전에 이 사건 휴게소를 낙찰받은 후 별도의 법인설립이 가능하다는 것을 자신들로부터 이미 들어서 알고 있다고 진술하고 있으나, 공소외 11의 진술에 의하면 피고인 2는 2002. 6. 27. 이후에 공소외 11의 공소외 3 주식회사 방문 당시 비로소 “컨소시엄”의 운영 가능성을 타진하였고, 공소외 11로부터 명의변경이나 법인전환 등 운영권의 이전이 불가능하다는 이야기를 그때 처음 들었으며(공판기록 204면), 바로 피고인 3에게 전화로 이러한 이야기를 하자 피고인 3이 제1심 공동피고인 4에게 휴게소를 운영하는 별도의 법인설립이 불가능한 것이 사실이냐고 따졌음에(위와 같이 따진 점에 대하여는 제1심 공동피고인 4도 이를 인정하고 있다) 비추어 보면, 피고인 2, 3이 이 사건 입찰이 종료되기 전에 휴게소를 운영하는 법인의 설립이 불가능하다는 것을 몰랐다고 할 수밖에 없는 점, ⑧ 송전양행은 입찰 참가자격이 없어 처음부터 입찰에 참가하는 것이 불가능하였으며 이러한 사실을 피고인 2, 3에게 이야기하였다고 제1심 공동피고인 4, 공소외 6은 진술하고 있으나, 공소외 2 주식회사 사무실에 대한 압수·수색 영장 집행 당시 공소외 2 주식회사의 공소외 10 이사가 제출한 서류(수사기록 846면 이하)에 의하면 2002. 6. 10. 1차 서류심사 당시 (명칭 생략)농산과 “송전양행”의 두 업체가 탈락했다고 기재되어 있고, 송전양행의 대리인으로는 공소외 13이 기재되어 있는 점 등의 여러 어긋나는 정황이나 진술상의 모순점 등에 비추어 보면, 적어도 이 부분 공소사실과 관련하여 위의 공모 여부에 관한 제1심 공동피고인 4, 공소외 6 부자의 진술은 신빙성에 의심이 간다고 하지 아니할 수 없다(더욱이 공소외 6은 이 사건의 발단이 된 진정서에서나 검찰의 최초 조사시에 자신들의 잘못은 입찰의 공정을 해한 데에 있고, 피고인 2 등의 잘못은 동업약정을 파기한 데에 있다는 취지로 자인한 바 있기도 하다).

(B) Nonindicted 9, 8, and 10’s statements

Each of the above statements is merely the purport that Defendant 2 and 3 conspiredd with Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial or conspiredd with Defendant 3 to give rise to the crime of breach of trust against Defendant 2. As long as the statements made by Co-Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 6 of the first instance trial are difficult to believe as above, it is insufficient to recognize the above facts of the above conspiracy.

(C) The above investigation report

As seen above, the above investigation report is inconsistent with the statement of Co-defendant 4 and Non-Indicted 6 of the first instance court, and it is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that at least Defendant 2 and 3 conspiredd with Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court to interfere with the bid of this case, or that Defendant 3 conspiredd with Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court to give rise to the misappropriation of trust by Defendant 2.

(D) Sub-determination

In a false criminal trial, the conviction of guilty should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to confluence that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. In light of these legal principles, there is no or insufficient evidence to acknowledge this as to each part of the charges of obstruction of tender by the defendant 2 and 3 and breach of trust against the defendant 3. However, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, was erroneous, and without examining the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant 2, the court below rejected the reversal in this respect.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is ruled as follows.

The operators of auxiliary facilities, such as rest areas, gas stations, LPG charging stations, etc., installed in the astronomical Donsan Expressway, managed and operated by the State Highway, shall be selected through the first document examination (in June 10, 2002) and the second tender examination (in June 18, 2002),

1. Defendant 1 in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial:

Defendant 1 as the Deputy Director of the Business Team of the above Company, who is responsible for the practical planning, promotion, and supervision of the above bidding and the follow-up management of the rest facility;

Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial on March 18, 2002, at the non-permanent restaurant near the 457 "Yaeong-dong 457, Taepo-dong, Taepo-si, "Sacheon Doksan Highway", provided that "I will deliver a tender notice in advance, and review the appropriateness of the construction plan, traffic report, traffic impact assessment report, etc., which is an confidential document that is not disclosed to other bidders 4 of the first instance trial at around that time, to enable Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial to prepare in advance at favorable locations by securing information such as the method of selecting the rest area operation enterprise, the method and method of evaluation in document examination, the date and method of bidding, and matters of attention, etc., and to provide other bidders with a construction plan, traffic impact assessment report, etc., which is an confidential document that is not disclosed to the public.

2. Defendant 1:

On January 1, 2002, the first instance court Co-Defendant 4, in a co-defendant 4 in a joint relationship with Defendant 2, received unjust solicitation from Defendant 2 to the effect that the right to operate the said rest area was awarded, and provided operational convenience after winning a contract, and the said right to operate the rest area was awarded on behalf of Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court on November 2002, and received unjust solicitation from Defendant 2, in response thereto, that “the business convenience in connection with the operation of the rest area is changed in the future,” and accordingly, in response, acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 10,000,000 at the market price of two sales stores of bread and bread, around January 203.

3. Defendant 2, in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court,

In the time and place specified in paragraph (2), Defendant 1 made an illegal solicitation, such as the statement, and in return, granted financial benefits by granting two goodwills to the head of the department and the bak sales store around January 2003.

1. The defendant 1 and 2's legal statements in each of the above defendants 1 and 2 and each of the above defendants' partial statements in the first trial records of the court below

1. In the second trial record of the court below, all the co-defendant 4 and non-indicted 6's statements are written.

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant 1 by each prosecutor;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Articles 315, 30 (Interference with Tender, Selection of Imprisonment), and Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of receiving property in breach of trust, and Selection of Imprisonment)

Defendant 2: Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Misappropriation)

1. To include days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 1);

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 1, 2);

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (Taking into account the fact that no previous criminal record exists, amount, reflectivity, etc.)

1. Collection (Defendant 1);

The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of interfering with the tender to Defendant 2 and the charge of interfering with the tender and giving evidence in breach of trust against Defendant 3 is an act of interfering with the tender as stated in the criminal facts of Defendant 1 and Co-defendant 4 in the judgment of the first instance court, and Defendant 3 took part in the act of interfering with the tender as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts of Defendant 1 and Co-defendant 4 in the judgment of the first instance court, but this constitutes a case where there is no proof of each crime as seen in the judgment of paragraph (2) of the instant case, and thus, the charge is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the part of the facts charged in this case that the above Defendant: (a) opened the envelope in the bidding process of this case by allowing Nonindicted 8 to extract a unsatisfyed envelope in advance; and (b) was awarded a successful tender in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 as well as the part that Defendant 1 was not guilty as there is no proof of crime; (c) as long as it is found that Defendant 1 was guilty of the facts constituting the crime of interference with tender as indicated in the judgment in relation to the crime of one crime, this part of the judgment of innocence is not to be pronounced in separate text.

Judges Don-hee (Presiding Judge)