2011 Gohap513, 518(Joint), 539(Joint), 539(Joint)

(b) Interference with business;

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

1.(a)(c) Park 00, Construction

2.(a)(b)O00, Company Board

3.D.00, Company Board

4.B.00, Company Board

5.나.주##,회사원

6.가.나.김##,건설업

7.(a)(b)(j)00, Construction Business

8.(a)(b)(*, Construction Business*

9.B.00, Company Board

10.가.나. 김@@, 건설업

Prosecutions (prosecutions, public trials)

Law Firm New century

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Law Firm Kcel

[Defendant 00, Defendant 1]

Attorney Choi Jin-young (Defendant Kim 00, Jeju 00, Kim*)

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

담당변호사 박해운(피고인 주##를 위하여)

변호사 최순용(피고인 주##, 김@@을 위하여)

Law Firm Barun

담당변호사 송봉준(피고인 김##를 위하여)

Law Firm Cheongn, Law Firm

Attorney Seo-sung (Defendant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 30, 2012

피고인 박00을 징역 5년에, 피고인 오00를 징역 1년에, 피고인 김00을 징역 2년 6월에, 피고인 주00, 주##를 각 징역 1년에, 피고인 김##, 차OO을 각 징역 1년 6월에, 피고인 김**을 징역 1년에, 피고인 장00을 징역 8월에, 피고인 김@@을 징역 1년에 각 처한다.

다만, 피고인 오00, 주00, 주##, 김 ##, 차00, 김**, 장00, 김@@에 대하여는 이 판결 확정일부터 각 2년간 위 각 형의 집행을 유예한다.

Each of the defendants 1, M.Z. Eststish management contracts, 10 copies of the contract, 10 copies of the contract, 10 copies of the contract, 145 copies of CD 145, 4 photographs, and 54 rubbers shall be confiscated from 00. The penalty of KRW 250,000,000 shall be collected from the defendant Kim 0.

Criminal History Office

1. Defendant Park 00

피고인은 주식회사 00(2008. 7. 10. ‘주식회사 @@’으로 상호 변경, 2010. 7. 26. ‘주식회사 ****'로 상호 변경) 등 15개 건설회사에 대하여 피고인이나 피고인의 처 현00, 처형 현@@, 지인인 A, B, C, D 등을 대표이사, 사내이사 등으로 등재한 사람이다. 피고인은 해외건설공사 실적을 해외건설협회에 신고하면 이를 국내건설공사 실적과 동일하게 인정받아 국내 관공서 등의 건설공사 입찰에 참여할 수 있다는 점을 이용하여, 실제로는 국내 업체들이 사우디아라비아에서 공사한 사실이 없음에도 사우디아라 비아에서 공사한 것처럼 건설공사 실적을 조작하여, 해외건설협회 및 대한건설협회로부터 관련 공사 실적을 인정받아 거액의 관급공사를 낙찰받기로 마음먹었다.

피고인과 차OO(주식회사 E, 주식회사 F 운영), 오00(주식회사 E의 이사), 김 ##(주식회사 G, 주식회사 H, I 주식회사, 주식회사 페어리건설 운영), 김**(주식회사 K, L 주식회사 운영), 장OO(주식회사 M 운영), 김 @@(주식회사 N 운영)은 사우디아라비아에서 공사를 실제 시공한 것처럼 해외건설협회에 허위로 실적을 신고하고, 그 실적을 이용하여 관급공사를 낙찰받기로 각각 공모하였다.

(a) Interference with business;

1) Part on interference with business of the Overseas Construction Association

(a) the prime contractor is M.Z. Easblish management, Khuzam;

피고인은 해외건설공사 실적을 조작하기 위하여 공사 관련 자료가 필요하자, 사우디아라비아에서 M.Z. Establishment(이하 'M.Z.'이라 한다), 봉경건설 등의 명의로 공사를 진행하고 있는 주00에게 실적 신고에 필요한 공사계약서, 공사개요서, 공사내역서, 사진, 도면 등의 자료를 제공해주면 그 대가를 지급하겠다고 제안하였고, 주00는 이를 수락한 다음 국내에 머물고 있는 동생 주##를 통해 위 자료를 피고인에게 제공해 주기로 하고, 주##는 해외건설공사 실적 신고에 필요한 월별 기성금을 임의로 계산해 주기로 하여, 피고인과 주00, 주##는 M.Z., Khuzam 명의로 해외건설협회에 해 외건설공사 실적을 허위로 신고하기로 공모하였다.

피고인은 2008. 1. 15.경 서울 중구 서소문동 12-23에 있는 해외건설협회 사무실에서, 사실은 주식회사 P이 사우디아라비아에서 공사금액 6,658,949,893원 상당의 '사우디 지잔지역 광대역 확장공사'를 수주받거나 직접 시공한 사실이 없음에도, 주##로부터 실적 신고에 필요한 공사계약서, 공사개요서, 공사내역서, 사진, 도면 등의 자료를 제공받고, 주##로 하여금 공사내역서를 토대로 월별 기성금을 임의로 계산하게 한 다음, 그 계약서, 월별 기성금 등을 이용하여 마치 주식회사 P이 위 공사를 실제로 2009. 6.경 하도급받아 그 무렵 착공하여 2010. 4.경 준공 예정인 것처럼 가장하여, 해 외건설협회에 건설공사 기성실적 증명신청서를 제출하였다. 이를 비롯하여 피고인은 2008. 1. 10.부터 2010. 2. 18.까지 사이에 해외건설 협회에 건설공사 실적을 신고함에 있어 사우디아라비아의 원청업체인 M.Z., Khuzam

By arbitrarily preparing a contract and construction specifications in the name of the overseas construction association, the photograph and drawings of the construction work that the domestic company has not been executed are submitted as if the domestic company was directly executed by the domestic company, making duplicate copies of the check, submitting them as documentary evidence of performance, or revising and submitting the contents thereof, the original company in the attached Table 1, as shown in the attached Table 1, shall be M.Z., Khuzam, and the original company shall report falsely to the Overseas Construction Association and interfere with the work of the person in charge of reporting the performance of the overseas construction association by deceptive means, as if the construction work had been done in the amount of KRW 232,30,260,484 over 38 times from Saudi Arabia, as stated in the attached Table 1.

B) If the prime contractor is Stilver Gard, or KADI

In order to manipulate the performance of overseas construction works, the Defendant offered that C, who resides in S.G., and performs construction-related work, will pay the price on the high level of materials, such as construction contract, outline of construction, construction specifications, photographs, drawings, etc., which are necessary to report the performance of overseas construction works, and C, upon accepting the above materials, offered that the Defendant would make a false report on the performance of overseas construction works to the Overseas Construction Association in the name of S.G., and that C, upon receiving the above materials and the seals, checks, etc. of S. and arbitrarily calculates the monthly progress payment required for reporting the performance of overseas construction works, the Defendant and C conspired to report the performance of overseas construction works to the Overseas Construction Association in the name of KADI.

The Defendant: (a) around January 15, 2008, at the office of the Overseas Construction Association around January 15, 2008; (b) even though 00 Co., Ltd. received, or did directly perform, the construction work in Saudididididididif, the construction cost of which is equivalent to KRW 7,454,39,756, the construction cost of which is equivalent to KRW 7,459,756, the Defendant: (c) provided C with data such as a construction contract, construction outline, construction specifications, photographs, drawings, etc. necessary for reporting performance; (d) had C arbitrarily calculate the progress payment on the basis of the construction specifications; and (e) had C calculate the monthly progress payment on the basis of the construction specifications; and (e) applied for the proof of the completed performance of the construction work to the Overseas Construction Association on around August 2007, by pretending that the construction work was actually subcontracted and started around that time; and (e)

In addition, when the Defendant reported the performance of construction works to the Overseas Construction Association between January 11, 2008 and February 16, 2010, the Defendant arbitrarily prepared a contract under the name of S.G., KDAI, and construction specifications, and submitted photographs and drawings of construction works that the domestic company has not been executed directly by the domestic company, as if the domestic company directly executed the construction, and submitted duplicate copies of the number of copies, which are documentary evidence of performance, or revised and submitted the contents thereof. In addition, as indicated in the attached Table 1, seven companies, such as the original company, 00, Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., from S., Ltd. to S., 20 times, from S.G., KDAI, 200 to S.A., 20 times, reporting construction works to the Overseas Construction Association by fraudulent means, thereby hindering the person in charge of reporting the performance of overseas construction works by the overseas construction association.

2) Part concerning interference with the affairs of the branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation;

On January 20, 2009, the Defendant reported the results of overseas construction works to PPB Co., Ltd. PP on March 17, 2009 (hereinafter “Co., Ltd. PP”) by false means, and performed D&W construction works in SP region from Saudi Arabia, Group D&W from Syravia, Group D&W. A certificate of completed construction works in 2008, which was issued by the Korea Construction Association, was submitted to the Korea Construction Association, and was recognized as the result of construction works. The Defendant, as an employee of the Korea Construction Association, was allowed to enter the results of the construction works into the FB system in FF (G2B) system, was assigned to Kim Jong-il on March 5, 2009; thereafter, the Defendant, who was aware of the results of overseas construction works, was issued to the Korea Overseas Construction Association’s 200 PPE by falsely entering the results of overseas construction works in the PPE system into the Korea Construction Association.

On June 22, 2010, the Defendant participated in the bidding of “civil engineering works on farmland remodeling projects in a 's amount equivalent to KRW 4,385,220,000 of the construction cost ordered by the branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation to the branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation.’ The facts are as follows: (a) even though P did not have actual performance of construction works and is not entitled to receive a successful bid for the said construction works, P did not have the capacity to receive a successful bid for the said construction works; (b) from Saudidivia to Saudidivia during the period of 2008 to 2009, the Defendant would have been the most as having actually received construction works equivalent to KRW 21.2 billion from P to the actual receipt of orders; and (c) thereby, the Defendant would have been awarded the said construction contracts and the conclusion of contracts by the contracting officers

B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

1) Dam integrated Construction Co., Ltd., dynaland, Co., Ltd.*** (No. 2 of crime sight table 2)

3) Part

The Defendant, as described in paragraph 1 of the above paragraph 2, filed a false report on the performance of overseas construction works for 20 billion won, and the Overseas Construction Association Co., Ltd., Ltd., 2008, “Certificate of Fraudulent Performance for Construction in 2008,” and “Certificate of Work Performance for Construction in 209, 100, 2009, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000.

2) Co., Ltd.*** (Nos. 4 through 7 of crime inundation 2) and P portion of corporation

피고인은 위 가.의 1)항 기재와 같이 주식회사 00에 대한 해외건설공사 실적을 허위로 신고하여, 해외건설협회로부터 주식회사 00가 사우디아라비아에서 젯다지역 하우징커넥션 상하수도공사를 시공하였다는 내용의 '2007년도 건설공사기성실적증명 서'를 발급받은 후, 위 기성실적증명서를 대한건설협회에 제출하여 공사 실적을 인정받은 다음, 그 정을 모르는 대한건설협회의 직원으로 하여금 국가종합전자조달(G2B) 시스템에 위 공사 실적을 입력하게 함으로써 주식회사 00가 거액의 관급공사를 낙찰받을 수 있는 자격을 갖추었다. 그 후 피고인은 2009. 2. 26.경 주식회사 @@을 문년모에게 양도하고, 위와 같이 실적이 허위 신고된 정을 모르는 문년모로 하여금, 2009. 3. 10. 대전광역시 하천관리 사업소에서 발주하는 공사금액 1,101,600,000원 상당의 ‘갑천 자전거전용도로 조성사업 (2공구)'의 입찰에 참가함에 있어, 사실은 주식회사 @@이 실제 공사를 한 실적이 없어 위 공사를 낙찰받을 자격이 없음에도, 주식회사 @@이 2007년 사우디아라비아에서 10,516,630,216원 상당의 공사를 실제로 수주받아 시공한 것처럼 가장하게 하여, 이에 속은 대전광역시 하천관리사업소로부터 위 공사를 낙찰받게 하였다.

In addition, as indicated in the [Attachment 2] List of Crimes Nos. 4 through 7, 9, and 10, the Defendant: from March 10, 2009 to April 21, 201, the above method ***********, a stock company participated in the bidding of government-funded construction works, and participated in construction works equivalent to a total of 26.4 billion won, and thereby interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the bid for construction contracts and the conclusion of contracts by contract public officials, such as the river management business office, in Daejeon Metropolitan City, by deceptive means.

3) The part of F, K, G, and I Co., Ltd.

피고인은 차00, 오00와 공모하여, 위 가.의 1)항 기재와 같이 주식회사 F에 대한 해외건설공사 실적을 허위로 신고하여 해외건설협회로부터 주식회사 F가 사우디아 라비아에서 '사우디 아부하지역 조경공사 PK1'을 시공하였다는 취지로 되어 있는 '2008년도 건설공사기성실적증명서'를 발급받은 후, 위 기성실적증명서를 대한건설협회에 제출하여 공사 실적을 인정받은 다음, 그 정을 모르는 대한건설협회의 직원으로 하여금 국가종합전자조달(G2B) 시스템에 위 공사 실적을 입력하게 함으로써 주식회사 F가 거액의 관급공사를 낙찰받을 수 있는 자격을 갖추었다. 그 후 차00, 오00는 2010. 3. 5. 전라북도에서 발주하는 공사금액 5,093,300,000원 상당의 '섬진강살리기 3공구(전북) 사업 3-1공구(진안 임실지구) 시설공사'의 입찰에 주식회사 F 명의로 참가함에 있어, 사실은 주식회사 F가 실제 위와 같은 공사를 한 실적이 없어 위 공사를 낙찰받을 자격이 없음에도, 주식회사 F가 2008년 사우디아라비아에서 88억 원 상당의 공사 등을 실제로 수주받아 시공한 것처럼 가장하여, 이에 속은 전라북도로부터 위 공사를 낙찰받았다. 이를 비롯하여 피고인은 차00, 오00, 김**, 김 ##, 김00 과 각각 공모하여 별지 범죄일람표2 중 순번 11 내지 18 기재와 같이, 2009. 1. 5.부터 2011. 6. 3.까지 위와 같은 방법으로 주식회사 F 등 5개 업체가 사우디아라비아에서 건설공사를 실제로 수주받아 시공한 것처럼 가장한 후, 관급공사의 입찰에 참가하여 총 8건 합계 391억 원 상당의 건설공사를 낙찰받아, 위계로써 전라북도 등의 계약 공무원의 공사계약입찰 및 계약체결에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

(c) Property in breach of trust;

1) As above, the Defendant falsely reported the construction performance to the Overseas Construction Association with respect to 19 companies not actually engaged in construction works in Saudi Arabia, and the report cannot be accepted normally. However, on April 2008, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation to the effect that “I would like to know the overseas construction performance report to the Kim 00, a person in charge of reporting the performance of the Overseas Construction Association at the coffee shop located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, on the grounds that “I would be able to continue to report the performance of overseas construction works, I would be able to know the number, so I would be able to continue to report the performance of overseas construction works,” and that I would like to make an illegal solicitation to the effect that I would be able to consider convenience at the time of reporting the performance of overseas construction works, and from the national bank account (696301-01-262542) account in the Defendant’

The sum of KRW 30 million on April 21, 2008, KRW 22.30 million on April 22, 2008, KRW 100 million on April 22, 2008, and KRW 26.4 million on April 26, 200, was remitted to the corporate bank account under the name of the company bank account (038-08064-01-01) and granted to Kim0.

2) On February 10, 2009, the Defendant made an illegal solicitation with the foregoing purport to the KimO, and transferred the amount of KRW 150 million to the bank account in the name of Kim Jong-jin (1002-037-605130) in the name of Kim Jong-jin (1002-037-605130), and granted it to Kim 00.

2. Defendant Kim 00

On November 8, 199, the Defendant entered the Overseas Construction Association, has been in charge of duties as a member of the Technology Center for Small and Medium Enterprises Korea from March 30, 2006, as a vice head of the Engineering Information Center from March 1, 2008, as a vice head of the Engineering Information Center from March 1, 2009, as the head of the Project Support Office from March 1, 2009, and continued to receive reports on the performance of overseas construction works from March 30, 206, and issuing reports on the performance of overseas construction works.

The Defendant received unjust solicitation from Park 00 to consider convenience when reporting the performance of overseas construction works, as described in paragraph (c) of Article 1, to receive money from Park 00 in return for accepting reports on the performance of overseas construction works.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 250 million from 00,000,000 from 250,000 on each day described in paragraph (c) of this Article, and the person administering another’s business acquired property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

3. 피고인 주00, 주## 피고인 주00는 사우디아라비아에서 M.Z.의 General Manager로 근무하였던 사람으로, 현재 국내 및 사우디아라비아에 사무소가 있는 봉경건설 주식회사의 대표이사이고, 피고인 주##는 피고인 주00의 동생이다. 박OO은 해외건설공사 실적을 해외건설협회에 신고하면 이를 국내 건설공사 실적과 동일하게 인정받아 국내 관공서 등의 건설공사 입찰에 참여할 수 있다는 점을 이용하여, 실제로는 국내 업체들이 사우디아라비아에서 공사한 사실이 없음에도 사우디아라 비아에서 공사한 것처럼 건설공사 실적을 조작하는 등의 방법으로, 해외건설협회에 건설공사 실적을 신고하기로 마음먹었다.

박00은 해외건설공사 실적을 조작하기 위하여 공사 관련 자료가 필요하자, 사우디 아라비아에서 M.Z., 봉경건설 주식회사 등의 명의로 공사를 진행하고 있는 피고인 주OO에게 실적 신고에 필요한 공사계약서, 공사개요서, 공사내역서, 사진, 도면 등의 자료를 제공해주면 그 대가를 지급하겠다고 제안하였고, 피고인 주00는 이를 수락한 다음 국내에 머물고 있는 피고인 주##를 통해 위 자료를 박OO에게 제공해 주기로 하고, 피고인 주##는 해외건설공사 실적 신고에 필요한 월별 기성금을 임의로 계산해 주기로 하여, 피고인들은 마치 국내 업체들이 사우디아라비아에서 직접 공사를 시공한 것처럼 해외건설협회에 허위 시공실적을 신고하기로 박00과 공모하였다. 피고인 주##는 2009. 6.경 부천시 원미구 상동 447 송내리더스텔 320호에 있는 박00이 운영하는 주식회사 은파종합건설 사무실에서, 실제로는 M.Z.이 사우디아라비아에서 현지의 여러 재하청업체에 하도급하여 시공하고 있는 '사우디 지잔지역 광대역 확장공사'의 계약서, 공사개요서, 공사내역서, 사진, 도면을 박00에게 건네주고, 박00 이 해외건설협회에 월별 기성금을 신고할 수 있도록 공사내역서를 토대로 월별 기성금을 임의로 계산해 주었다.

박00은 2010. 1. 29.경 해외건설협회 사무실에서, 사실은 주식회사 P이 사우디아라 비아에서 공사금액 6,658,949,893원 상당의 '사우디 지잔지역 광대역 확장공사'를 수주받거나 직접 시공한 사실이 없고, 피고인 주##에게 대가를 지급하고 공사 관련 자료만을 교부받아 피고인의 사무실에서 신고 관련 서류를 만들었음에도, 마치 주식회사 P이 위 공사를 실제로 2009. 6.경 하도급받아 그 무렵 착공하여 2010. 4.경 준공 예정인 것처럼 가장하여, 해외건설협회에 건설공사 기성실적 증명신청서를 제출하였다. 이를 비롯하여 피고인들은 박00과 공모하여, 2008. 1. 15.부터 2010. 2. 18.까지 사이에 해외건설협회에 건설실적을 신고함에 있어 사우디아라비아의 원청업체인 M.Z., Khuzam 명의의 계약서, 공사내역서를 임의로 작성하고, 실제로 국내 업체가 시공하지 않은 공사의 사진과 도면을 마치 국내 업체가 직접 시공한 것처럼 제출하고, 실적 증빙서류인 수표를 복사하여 중복으로 제출하거나 그 내용을 수정하여 제출하는 등 관련 서류를 조작하여 제출하는 방법으로, 별지 범죄일람표1 중 원청업체가 M.Z., Khuzam인 부분 기재와 같이 주식회사 P 등 17개 업체가 사우디아라비아에서 38회에 걸쳐 2,322억 원 상당의 건설공사를 한 것처럼 해외건설협회에 허위 신고를 하여 해외건설 협회의 실적 신고 담당자의 업무를 방해하였다.

4. Defendant 00 and 00 Defendant 10 are actually engaged in the construction of E, F, and M&D companies. Defendant 100 is a director of E, a stock company.

(a) Interference with business;

The Defendants introduced Park 00 through consulting companies to participate in the bidding of government-funded construction, and, based on the fact that the Defendants reported the results of the overseas construction work to the Overseas Construction Association, they can participate in the bidding of the construction works such as the domestic government offices. In fact, the Defendants reported that the said companies did not have been performing construction works directly in Saudi Arabia but did not directly perform the construction works in Saudi Arabia, and conspired with 00 to receive the award of government-funded construction works by obtaining the recognition of the relevant construction performance from the Overseas Construction Association and the Korea Construction Association.

The Defendants, around January 15, 2009, filed an application with the Overseas Construction Association for the proof of the completed works of Korea on the basis of the fact that: (a) F Co., Ltd. received orders or directly executed construction works of an amount equivalent to KRW 8,812,532,440 of construction cost from Saudi Arabia; (b) although F Co., Ltd. was not in fact ordered to do so from Saudi Arabia; (c) as if it commenced the above construction work on June 2008 and completed the construction work around December 2008, the Defendants filed an application for the proof of the completed works with the Overseas Construction Association; (d) the Defendants conspired with 00, from January 10, 2008 to February 18, 2010, the Defendants paid to F Co., Ltd. 4 of the report of construction work from 70 billion won to 40 billion from 40 billion from 20 billion from 20 billion from 20 billion from 14 billion from 200.

B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

The Defendants, in collusion with Park 00, filed a false report on the performance of overseas construction works for F Co., Ltd., as described in the above paragraph (a) and obtained a “certificate of completed construction works in 2008,” which was for F Co., Ltd. to the effect that F Co., Ltd. was performing 'PK1' from Saudi Arabia, from Saudi Arabia, and submitted the above certificate of completed construction works to the Korea Construction Association, thereby obtaining recognition of the performance of the construction works. The Defendants were entitled to receive large-scale government-funded construction works (G2B) by allowing employees of the Korea Construction Association, who may know of such fact, to enter the performance of the said construction works in the national electronic procurement system, thereby obtaining a bid from 200 billion won in total from 100,000,000 won, and thereby obtaining a bid from 30,000,000,000 won in total from 20,000,000 won, and thus, the Defendants were not entitled to receive the above construction works from 8,08,0,0,000.

5. 피고인 김##

The defendant is a person who actually operates the construction of G, H, I, and Pua Co., Ltd.

(a) Interference with business;

In order to participate in a tendering procedure for government-funded construction, the Defendant introduced Park 00 through consulting companies, and reported the results of overseas construction to the Korea Overseas Construction Association, the Defendant may participate in the tendering procedure for the construction works, such as a domestic government office, with the same recognition as the results of domestic construction.Based on this, the Defendant, in fact, submitted a report to the Korea Overseas Construction Association, as if the said company did not have been performing construction works directly in Saudi Arabia, was approved by the Korea Overseas Construction Association and the Korea Overseas Construction Association, and conspired with 00 to receive a successful bid for government-funded construction works.

On January 11, 2008, the Defendant applied for the verification of the completed performance of the construction works to the Overseas Construction Association, on the ground that G was subcontracted on September 2007 and started around March 2008, even though it was not having received orders from or directly executed the construction of the 5,863,095,50 won of the construction cost in Saudidia in the area of Saudidia, G, which is a problem of the 5,863,095,50 won of the construction cost.

In collusion with Park 00, the Defendant reported the performance of overseas construction works to the Overseas Construction Association from January 11, 2008 to February 16, 2010, and in fact, even though Saudi Arabia did not directly perform the said construction works, it was intended that four companies, such as G Co., Ltd., filed a false report with the Overseas Construction Association, to interfere with the duties of the person in charge of reporting the performance of the Overseas Construction Association by deceptive means as if four companies, such as G, etc., were engaged in construction works worth KRW 67.7 billion from Saudi Arabia to 14 times as shown in the attached Table 1 of the Crimes List.

B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

The Defendant reported falsely the results of overseas construction works for G, as described in the above paragraph (a), and obtained “certificate of completed construction works in 2007, stating that G, Inc. performed construction works in Saudidiian region in 100,” and submitted it to the Korea Construction Association for the aforementioned certificate of completed construction works, thereby obtaining recognition of the performance of the construction works. By allowing the employees of the Korea Construction Association to enter the performance of the said construction works in the national comprehensive electronic procurement (G2B) system, G, a company of large amount of government-funded construction works. On June 2, 2011, the Defendant was entitled to receive a successful bid for the said construction works from 10,278,298,000 won. The Defendant, in the name of G, Inc., a 2000,000 won of construction works ordered at 200,000,000 won of construction works from 20,0000 won of construction works, without having actually been awarded the highest performance of the said construction works from 107,0,05,0,07,08.

6. Defendant Kim*

The defendant is the representative director of K, and is the actual operator of K Exclusive Business Co., Ltd.

(a) Interference with business;

In order to participate in a tender of government-funded construction, the Defendant acquired K as a proposal of 00, and reported the results of overseas construction to the Overseas Construction Association, the Defendant may participate in the tender of construction works such as a domestic government office, etc. with the same recognition as the results of domestic construction.Based on the above, the Defendant, in fact, submitted a report as if the said company had performed directly construction works in Saudi Arabia although the said company did not work in Saudi Arabia, was recognized by the Korea Overseas Construction Association and the Korea Overseas Construction Association, and conspired with 00 to receive a successful bid for government-funded construction.

On January 15, 2008, the Defendant applied for the proof of the completed performance of construction works to the Overseas Construction Association, on the ground that K was awarded a contract or directly performing construction works of the 5,646,943,264 won of the construction cost at Libya Co., Ltd. at Libya, but K was awarded a contract on August 2007 and started around that time and started around that time on March 2008.

In collusion with Park 00, the Defendant reported the performance of overseas construction works to the Overseas Construction Association from January 15, 2008 to February 5, 2010, and in fact, in Saudi Arabia, it was submitted as if the Defendant directly executed the construction works by being provided with data necessary for the performance report from PO even though he did not directly perform the said construction works, by submitting as if the Defendant had directly executed the construction works. As described in the [Attachment] No. 39-43 of the List of Offenses 1, two companies, such as K, etc., reported falsely to the Overseas Construction Association, and interfered with the duties of the person in charge of reporting the performance of the Overseas Construction Association by fraudulent means, as if the two companies, such as K, etc., conducted construction works worth KRW 20.7 billion from Saudi Arabia to five times.

After falsely reporting the results of overseas construction works to K, as described in paragraph (a) above, the Defendant issued a “certificate of completed construction works of the 2007 Construction Works” from Saudi Arabia to the Overseas Construction Association of Korea. After submitting a certificate of completed construction works of the above completed construction works to the Korea Construction Association, the Defendant obtained the recognition of the results of construction works, and let the employees of the Korea Construction Association enter the above construction works into the national comprehensive electronic procurement (G2B) system, thereby allowing F to be awarded a contract for a large amount of government-funded construction works. After which the Defendant, on March 3, 2009, entered the bid price of the construction cost of the 3,881,642,60 won ordered by Chungcheongnam-do, and the construction works of the 2000,000,000 won under the name of the Korea Construction Association of Saudi Arabian and the 205,000,000,0000 won, there were no legitimate reasons for the above construction works to be awarded from the 2005,06,07,06,06,006.

7. Defendant Heading00

The defendant is a representative director of a limited liability company M.

In order to participate in a tendering procedure, the Defendant introduced Park 00 via O00 directors of the Company E, and then submitted a report on the result of an overseas construction to the Overseas Construction Association, with the recognition of the performance of domestic construction and the recognition of it as the performance of the construction work, and submitted a report to the Korea Overseas Construction Association, to the effect that the Defendant was able to participate in a tendering procedure, such as a domestic government. In fact, the Defendant submitted a report as if he did not directly perform the construction work in Saudi Arabia, which was recognized by the Overseas Construction Association and the Korea Overseas Construction Association as having been awarded the performance of the relevant construction work, and conspired with 00 to receive a successful bid.

On February 3, 2010, the Defendant applied to the Overseas Construction Association for the verification of the completed performance of construction works on the ground that, in fact, the Defendant did not receive an order or directly perform the construction work equivalent to KRW 10,883,823,618 from Saudi Arabia to a limited liability company, the construction cost was 10,883,823,618.

In collusion with Park 00, the Defendant, even though he did not directly perform the above construction work in Saudi Arabia, was provided with necessary data from Park 00 and submitted as if the Defendant’s operating company directly performed the construction work. As such, the Defendant filed a false report with the Korea Overseas Construction Association as if the said construction work was done in Saudi Arabia, thereby interfering with the duties of the person in charge of reporting the performance of the Overseas Construction Association by deceptive means.

8. 피고인 김@@ 피고인 김@@은 2008. 3. 3.부터 토목 및 건축공사업을 영위하는 주식회사 N의 대표이사이다.

(a) Interference with business;

The Defendant reported the results of overseas construction to the Overseas Construction Association, with the recognition of the same results as that of domestic construction, and was able to participate in tenders such as domestic government offices. In fact, the Defendant: (a) reported that N was performing construction works in Saudi Arabia despite the fact that N was actually performing construction works in Saudi Arabia; (b) obtained recognition of the results of relevant construction works from the Overseas Construction Association and the Korea Construction Association; and (c) conspired with 00 to receive the award of government-funded construction works.

On January 19, 2009, the Defendant applied for the verification of the completed performance of the construction works to the Overseas Construction Association, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant did not receive an order from or directly execute the said construction works at the Overseas Construction Association office of Saudi Arabia in the amount equivalent to KRW 23,128,547,800 of the construction cost from Saudi Arabia; (b) the Defendant did not intend to obtain an order from or directly execute the said construction works; (c) the Defendant was presumed to have completed the said construction works on April 2008 by entering into a subcontract around that time; and (d) the Defendant applied for the verification of the completed performance of the construction works to the Overseas Construction Association.

In collusion with Park 00, the Defendant, even though he did not directly perform the above construction work in Saudi Arabia, was provided with data necessary to report the performance by PO and submitted as if the Defendant’s operation company directly performed the construction work. As such, the Defendant reported the above construction work to the Overseas Construction Association of Saudi Arabia by fraudulent means, thereby interfering with the duties of the person in charge of reporting the performance of the Overseas Construction Association.

B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

피고인은 위 가항 기재와 같이 주식회사 N에 대한 해외 건설실적을 허위로 신고하고 해외건설협회로부터 주식회사 N이 사우디아라비아에서 앗시르 6개지역 댐 흙막 이 공사를 시공하였다는 내용의 '2008년도 건설공사기성실적증명서'를 발급받은 후, 위 기성실적증명서를 대한건설협회에 제출하여 공사 실적을 인정받은 다음, 그 정을 모르는 대한건설협회의 직원으로 하여금 국가종합전자조달(G2B) 시스템에 위 공사 실적을 입력하게 함으로써, 주식회사 N이 거액의 관급공사를 낙찰받을 수 있는 자격을 갖추었다. 피고인 김@@은 2011. 2. 26.경 정읍시 상하수도사업소에서 발주한 공사금액 7,814,077,000원 상당의 '신태인 화호 양괴 처리분구 하수관거정비사업'의 입찰에 참가함에 있어, 사실은 주식회사 N이 실제 위 입찰에 참여할 정도의 공사를 한 실적이 없어 위 공사를 낙찰받을 자격이 없음에도, 위와 같이 주식회사 N이 2008년 사우디아라 비아에서 23,128,547,800원 상당의 공사를 실제로 수주받아 시공한 것처럼 가장하여, 이에 속은 정읍시 상하수도사업소로부터 위 공사를 낙찰받아, 위계로써 정읍시 상하수 도사업소 공사계약 담당 공무원의 공사계약입찰 및 계약체결 등에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

【Interference with Duties of the Overseas Construction Association among the criminal facts in the market】

1. A statement to the effect that, in the case of the Defendant Gazam in this court, the original contractor reported the performance to the Overseas Construction Association of Korea as if the domestic company actually did not perform the construction work in Saudi Arabia while the domestic company did not directly perform the construction work in Saudi Arabia;

1. 피고인 주##가 이 법정에서 한, 사우디아라비아에서 직접 공사를 시공한 것처럼 해 외건설협회에 실적신고를 하기 위해 필요한 자료(공사개요서, 공사내역서, 현장사진, 도면 등)를 피고인 박OO에게 제공한 사실이 있다는 취지의 진술 1. 피고인 오00, 김 ##, 차OO, 김**, 장00, 김@@의 각 법정진술

1. The witness's effect shall be the same as the one mentioned above, the one mentioned above, and the other mentioned above;

1. The entry of the effect of a witness in the third protocol of trial;

1. The statement to the effect that among the sixth prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination of the defendant ParkO, the defendant 1 conspireds with the defendant 100 to report falsely the performance of overseas construction works to the Overseas Construction Association (Evidence Record No. 58 books, No. 10168 books, No. 10168 to 10170 of the evidence record);

1. Statement by each prosecutor's office with respect to Shin Dong-dong and Han-dong (including the part concerning the statement in Myanmar);

1. Each police statement on the lighting day, the number of strongs, leathers, satisfy, sathos, sathos, and Kim Jong-il;

1. Each protocol of seizure and list of seizure [2 original copy of subcontract, 1 copy of contract, M.Z. Eststblish contract, 10 copies of contract, 10 copies of contract, 10 copies of contract, 10 copies of contract, 10 copies of contract, 1 Saydh, 1 copy of Pad and Ethy Workings At Riydh, 13 copies of contract, 13 copies of contract for success fees, 7 copies of bank transaction statement, 145 copies of contract, 4 photographs, 17 copies of wage register, 14 rights of confirmation of facts, 2 rights of confirmation of facts, 6 rights of disclosure of performance of overseas works, 6 rights of report of performance of overseas works, 4 books of report on use of construction works and related signatures and seals];

1. 각 수사보고[피고인 박00 출입국내역, C 출입국내역, 피고인 주00에 대한 외국환거래법위반 사건 송치서 사본, 피고인 박00 관련 해외건설 진정서류 이메일 송수신 내역, 피고인 박00이 피고인 주00에게 송금한 내역, 피고인 주##가 피고인 박00의 부탁으로 은행거래내역서를 만든 대가로 모하미드 압둘라 자빈 등에게 건넨 자금에 관한 근거서류(주식회사 봉경건설의 은행거래내역서 및 직원 가불증), 현00

Details of transactions in which false performance is received using a national bank account in the name of the national bank account in the name

1. Documents related to a report on the performance of overseas construction associations by business entity (a report on the performance of overseas construction, a general list of reports on the performance of overseas works, a certificate of the performance of overseas works, a report on the performance of overseas works, a written confirmation of the performance of overseas works, a written application for the performance certificate, a monthly confirmation, a copy of the contract, a copy of the contract, a design drawing, a field photograph, etc

【Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Methods due to the Successful Tender for Government-Funded Construction Works among the facts constituting the crime in the market and interference with the duties of the branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation

1. 피고인 박00이 이 법정에서 한, 위 피고인이 경영하는 주식회사 디와이토건이 허위의 해외공사 실적을 이용하여 대전광역시 대덕구청으로부터 산디천 재해위험예방공사를 낙찰받은 사실이 있다는 취지의 진술 1. 피고인 오00, 김##, 차00, 김**, 장00, 김@@의 각 법정진술

1. The written statement by each prosecutor of the prosecution concerning immigration control and the private police;

1. Each police protocol of statement of each police officer on tide, gambling, and Kim Jong-il;

1. Details of the award of construction works in the Republic of Korea by company (No. 29 books);

【The portion of evidence of breach of trust among the facts charged at the time of sale】

1. The statement to the effect that Defendant Park 00 remitted KRW 100,000 to the deposit account in the name of Defendant Kim 00 and KRW 150,000 to the deposit account in the name of Defendant Kim Jong-jin, the birth of Defendant Kim 00

1. Legal statement of the species of witness flowing water;

1. Third prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant Kim00

1. Each investigation report (the head of the support office for the overseas construction association project tracking Kim 00 financial accounts, the details of transactions in Kim Jong-jin, the address specified in the Internet banking IP address, e-mail confirmation sent to Kim 00, and a record of sending A);

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant Park 00

(1) An obstruction of business by fraudulent means against the Overseas Construction Association (attached Table 1 Nos. 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, and 22): Articles 314(1) and 313(2) of the Criminal Act; (3) interference with business by fraudulent means with the Overseas Construction Association (attached Table 1 Nos. 3-5, 10, 13-21, 23-58): Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

(3) Interference with the performance of duties by fraudulent means with respect to the branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation to its branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation: Articles 314(1), 313, 34(1), and 32(1)(4) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor)

(5) The point of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means (attached Table 4-10 No. 2): Articles 137, 34(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

(6) The point of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means (attached Table 11-18 No. 2): Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

(7) point of giving property in breach of trust: Article 357(2) and (1) (generally, choice of imprisonment);

나. 피고인 김00 배임수재의 점 : 형법 제357조 제1항(포괄하여, 징역형 선택)다. 피고인 주00, 주## 위계에 의한 업무방해의 점 : 각 형법 제314조 제1항, 제313조, 제30조(징역형 선택) 라. 피고인 오00, 김##, 차이

(a) point of interference with business through fraudulent means: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act;

(2) The obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Code (Selection of Imprisonment)

(e) Defendant Kim*

(a) point of interference with business through fraudulent means: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act;

(2) The obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

바. 피고인 장00 위계에 의한 업무방해의 점 : 형법 제314조 제1항, 제313조, 제30조(징역형 선택) 사. 피고인 김@@

(1) Violation of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means: Articles 314(1), 313, and 30(Preparation of Imprisonment)(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

피고인 박00, 오00, 주00, 주##, 차00, 김##, 김**, 김@@ : 각 형법 제37조 전단, 제38조 제1항 제2호, 제50조

1. Suspension of execution;

피고인 오00, 주00, 주##, 김##, 차00, 김**, 장00, 김@@ : 각 형법 제62조 제1 항

1. Confiscation;

Defendant Park 00: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

피고인 김00 : 형법 제357조 제3항 후문 피고인 박00, 김00, 주00, 주, 김@@ 및 변호인들의 주장에 대한 판단

1. Determination on Defendant Park 00’s assertion

A. Part concerning interference with business of the Overseas Construction Association

1) Summary and key issue of the assertion

피고인 박00과 변호인은, 별지 범죄일람표1 중 원청업체가 M.Z. 또는 Khuzam인 경우, 공소사실 기재와 같이 피고인이 실제로 사우디아라비아에서 공사를 시공하지 않았음에도, 피고인 주##가 가져다 준 M.Z., Khuzam의 공사 관련 자료를 이용하여 해 외건설협회에 허위로 실적을 신고한 사실은 인정하지만, 별지 범죄일람표1 중 원청업체가 S.G. 또는 KADI인 경우에는, 피고인이 사우디아라비아에 미래이엔씨와 00의 현지법인을 각 설립하고, 위 현지법인의 총괄이사인 C을 통하여 공사를 하도급받아 사우 디아라비아 건설업체에 재하도급을 주는 방식으로 공사를 실제 시공하였는바, 별지 범죄일람표1 중 순번 1, 2, 6~9, 11, 12, 22, 26, 29, 30, 44, 45, 47, 48, 53~56 기재 각 공사의 경우 허위로 실적을 신고한 것이 아니므로 해외건설협회에 대한 업무방해죄가 성립하지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다. 다만 그 중 별지 범죄일람표1 중 순번 26, 29, 30, 44, 45, 47, 48, 53~56 기재 각 공사의 경우 실제로는 피고인이 사우디아라비아에서 공사한 것을 주식회사 E, 주식회사 G, 주식회사 케이월드 종합건설에게 공사실적을 양도한 것이라고 주장한다.

Therefore, the issue of this part is whether the defendant actually performed the construction work by entering into a subcontract for construction work from S.G. or KDA to S.A. or KDA, a local employee, in S.L. or by re-subcontract to S. S.A. construction companies.

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) Operation of the company by Defendant 2O

① 피고인 박OO은 주식회사 은파종합건설, 주식회사 디와이토건, 주식회사 양진이앤씨, 주식회사 이리온테크(주식회사 미래이엔씨가 2010. 9. 27. 상호 변경)를 운영하였고, 주식회사 ****, 주식회사 P(주식회사 O이 2009. 3. 17. 상호 변경), 주식회사 태산전력, 주식회사 무경종합건설, 주식회사 @@(주식회사 00가 2008. 7. 10. 상호 변경)을 운영하다가 양도하였다.

② Defendant Hacheon-si, Seocheon-si, 447 E.O. used 307 E. B.O. 320 of E.O. 320 and 320 of E.O. 30 of E. B. 307 (or 712) and E. 307 (or 712) had only worked for female employees in the Republic of Korea, and the other employees did not work almost.

③ From January 1, 2005 to October 17, 2009, Defendant Park 00 entered or went back to Skidi, one time from June 23, 2006 to 28 of the same month, and the period from April 13, 2005 to 20 of the same month was from April 28, 2005 to November 28 of the same year; Defendant 2, from October 28, 2005 to 205 to 25 of the same month; from March 31, 2006 to April 8, 2006 to 200 to 10, Defendant 200 to 30,000 from 20 to 20,000 to 30,00 from 20,000 to 20,000 from 20,000 to 20,000 to 20,000.

나) 피고인 주##와 C 등의 허위 공사자료 제공

① 피고인 주##는 피고인 박OO에게 발주처(M.Z. 또는 Khuzam) 공사명, 공사단가, 공사기간, 기성금 지급조건이 기재된 공사개요서와 공사내역서를 건네주었고, 한효은은 공란으로 되어 있는 공사내역서의 회사 이름에 피고인 박00 관련 회사의 이름을 입력하는 작업을 함으로써, 국내업체가 M.Z.과 Khuzam으로부터 공사를 하도급받아 시공한 것처럼 서류를 만들었다.

② 피고인 박00은 피고인 주##로부터 받은 공사 자료 중 공사금액이 큰 것은 2건의 공사로 나누어 공사 자료를 만들고 실적신고를 하였다(예컨대, 별지 범죄일람표1 순번 32, 33의 사우디 아부하지역 조경공사 PK1과 사우디 아부하지역 조경공사 PK2). ③ 국내업체 명의의 기성금신청서 및 사우디아라비아 원청업체 명의의 기성금 수령확인서를 만들기 위하여 월별 기성금이 계산되어야 하는데, M.Z.과 Khuzam 관련된 월별 기성금은 피고인 주##가 나누어 가져왔고, S.G.과 관련된 월별 기성금의 경우 2007년도 공사분에 대하여는 C이 작성하였고, 2008년도 공사분에 대하여는 피고인 박00의 지시에 따라 한효은이 임의로 계산하였다.

④ 피고인 주##와 C 이외에 서기식이 피고인 박00에게 공사와 관련된 도면을 USB에 담아서 보내주었는데, 피고인 박00의 처 현00 계좌에서 서기식의 딸인 서예리의 계좌로 300만 원이 송금되었다.

C) Relationship between Defendant Park 00 and C

① Around May 2007, C provided Defendant GamO with S.G.’s construction-related data, S.G.’s official seal, check originals, etc. (the data on construction works held by C do not indicate the name of future EcC). During May 2007, C worked at Defendant 1’s office during the month of May 2007, she drafted a draft of the materials necessary to report performance, such as the water supply and sewerage construction work PK1, PK2, PK2, PK3, PK4, PK4, and water supply and waterworks construction contract, and submitted it to Defendant 100.

C A periodic entry into the Republic of Korea and Defendant GabO did not have any written report on their work, and sent a photograph related to the work to Defendant GabO’s office. Defendant GabO’s office used GabO’s account on June 26, 2007; KRW 1 million on November 29, 2007; KRW 10 million on May 29, 2008; KRW 5 million on September 24, 2008; KRW 10 million on November 32, 2010; KRW 590,000 on April 22, 2010; KRW 10,000 on August 23, 201; KRW 200,000 on August 11, 203; and KRW 200,000 on May 7, 201 of the same year; and Defendant GabO’s office was removed from the office.

(d) make false construction documents and report on the performance of Korea-U.S.D.;

① 한효은은 피고인 박00의 지시에 따라 피고인 박OO의 사무실에서, 피고인주##와 C으로부터 건네받은 자료를 이용하여 사우디아라비아 원청업체와 국내업체 사이의 하도급 공사계약서, 공사내역서, 수주활동보고서, 시공상황보고서, 기성금 수령 관련 자료들을 만들었다. 이때 원청업체와 국내업체 사이의 하도급 공사계약서는 이미 컴퓨터에 보관되어 있는 양식을 이용하여(사우디아라비아에서 들어온 양식을 보고 조금씩 보완하여 새로 작성함) 업체명을 바꾸어 작성하였고, 공사계약서상의 사우디아라비아 업체의 대표자 서명은 대표이사 서명을 도장으로 미리 만들어 놓은 스탬프로 찍거나 피고인 박00이 사인을 하였다. 간혹 바쁠 때는 피고인 박00의 직원인 송보미가 도장 찍는 일을 도와주었다.

② 피고인 박OO은 송보미에게 사우디아라비아 관련 서류에서 도장 있는 부분을 오려서 같은 모양의 도장을 만들 것을 지시하였고, 이에 송보미는 도장방에 의뢰하여 도장을 만들었으며, 이와 같이 제작된 M.Z., Khuzam, S.G.의 직인 등을 비롯하여 재하도급업체 및 국내 업체(세성, @@, 미래이엔씨, P, E, F, 양진이앤씨, 0, 무경종합건설 등)의 직인, 서명인장 등 피고인 박00의 사무실에 보관되어 있던 도장은 모두 54개이다(증거기록 58책 17권 10,128면 ~ 10,147면). 3 압수수색과정에서 송보미가 사용하던 사무실 컴퓨터에서 M.Z., Khuzam, S.G.의 기성금지불확인서 등이 발견되었는데, 이는 한효은이 작성한 기성금지불확인서와 피고인 주##가 가지고 온 공사내역서를 비교하여 금액이 맞는지, 오타가 있는지를 확인하기 위하여 받은 파일을 보관한 것이다.

(4) The effect of Korea-Japan reported a detailed statement of construction works received from Defendant GamO, entered the total amount of construction costs in the report on the status of activities for obtaining overseas works, and the report on the result of concluding overseas works, and entered the quarterly construction cost, human resources, equipment, etc. notified by Defendant 100.

(5) The Defendant Park 00 reported the name of construction, construction cost, construction period, and the original contractor to a number of enterprises using one construction data. The effect of the Defendant Park 00 reported that the report document was made through several proposals using the same overseas construction data in accordance with the direction of Defendant Park 00. For example, around June 2007 from S.G., Defendant Park 1 reported that the corporation was awarded a subcontract for the street and landscaping installation works in the rid area and the appurtenant works in the rid area, and around August 2008, the effect of the report document was prepared with two recommendations using the same data.

⑥ At around August 2008, Korea-Japan made the documents related to the landscaping of the rid area and civil engineering work brought by C to the direction of Defendant Park 00 as another company. In addition, in the case of the ridy area of the ridy Construction, the extension of the road in the ridy area of the ridyp area of the ridy Construction, and the asphalt Corporation (attached Table 1 No. 1 No. 5) and P’s ridyp construction in the ridyp area of P (attached Table 1 No. 5), the original ordering place is D&W group, and Korea-Japan entered Korea-Japan into the original order place in the column of S.G. in the official column under the direction of Defendant Park 00.

① 피고인 주##는 피고인 박00에게 실적 신고 시 필요한 사진과 도면을 주었는데, 한 도면을 여러 공사에 중복하여 사용하기 위하여 송보미가 도면의 원청업체 및 국내업체의 로고를 수정하였다.

8 With respect to a copy of a check submitted as documentary evidence at the time of filing a performance report, the validity of the order issued by the Defendant Park 00 and the invoices were copied and used. In S.G., the validity of the order issued by the Defendant Park 116 out of 227 copies of the check submitted to the Overseas Construction Association, which were submitted as documentary evidence, was a copy of the original copy of the check book held by the Defendant Park 00, and the copy was prepared in compliance with the order of the Defendant Park O in accordance with the monthly progress payment according to the direction of the Defendant Park O (in the process, the same number of checks were overlapped and used).

P Co., Ltd. submitted evidentiary materials of the checks issued by S.G. to be recognized in a timely manner from the previous Overseas Construction Association for overseas construction works. The said checks overlap with the checks submitted by other overseas construction companies than P as evidentiary materials to recognize the completion of overseas construction works from the Overseas Construction Association.

① At the Dad Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (SPC), the “Corporation with the soil of six regional dams from S.G.” and the official seal of M.Z. is affixed on a receipt (Evidence No. 7438 pages) for the progress payment received from S.G.

① According to the claim for the progress payment for the landscaping and water supply construction works in S.G., even though the original contractor is S.G., the applicant company erred in M.Z., even though it is the original contractor.

E) Preparation of a false statement of bank transactions

① 피고인 박00은 이 사건 수사가 개시되어 사우디아라비아에서 실제로 공사한 것인지에 관하여 조사를 받게 되자, 실제로 공사한 것임을 입증하기 위하여 피고인주##에게 허위 공사자료에 맞추어 허위의 은행거래내역서를 만들어 줄 것을 부탁하였다. 이에 한효은은 2010. 12. 14. 피고인 주##, 피고인 오00와 함께 사우디아라비아에 가서 M.Z.과 Khuzam에 관련된 은행거래내역서를 받아왔는데, 위 은행거래내역서는 주## 등이 임의로 계산했던 월별기성금 내역에 맞춰진 것이어서 허위로 작성된 것이다.

피고인 주##는 M.Z.의 General Manager인 모하미드 압둘라 자빈에게 허위의 은행거 래내역서를 작F 준 대가로 봉경건설 주식회사의 자금으로 3억 5,500만 원 상당을 지급하였다(증거기록 58책 14권 8,670면 ~ 8,679면).

② 피고인 박00은 피고인 주##에게 S.G.와 관련된 은행거래내역도 부탁하였는데, S.G.의 거래은행인 쌈바은행은 전산화가 체계적으로 되어 있어서 허위의 은행거 래내역서를 만들 수 없었다.

F) Security to enter into a subcontract with Saudi Arabia as security.

① In Saudi Arabia, it is common to receive a security equivalent to at least 20% of the construction cost from a subcontractor. Accordingly, a subcontractor shall deposit an amount of at least 20% of the construction cost in cash in a local bank, or obtain a performance bond from a local bank or a local bank in connection with the local bank and submit it to the original contractor.

However, the defendant Park 00, the original contractor, was awarded a contract for the construction, and did not submit a performance bond in relation to the performance of the contract, and did not provide any other security.

G) Conclusion of a contract with Defendant Park 00 and the representative of the relevant construction enterprise to verify the corporation performance and transfer of the corporation

① In 2007, Defendant 200 changed the name and content of “E” to “E” to acquire KRW 20 billion in the performance of the construction work performed by Defendant 200, not to participate in the construction work, and paid KRW 800 million to Defendant 20,000, and the cost and liability of the said construction work are all entrusted by Defendant 20, and it is recognized that the contents of the above corporation performance verification contract are illegal to illegally acquire the performance of overseas works. However, in 2010, Defendant 200 changed the name and content of the contract for performance verification (the contents that Defendant 200,000,000 won received money in return for overseas works). around June 2010, Defendant 2010, Defendant 200,000 won in total, paid KRW 300,000,000 in the acquisition cost to Defendant 20,000,000 won in consideration of the acquisition cost of Defendant 20,000 won in consideration of the construction work.

③ 피고인 김##는 피고인 박OO에게 허위 실적신고(신고액 677억 원)의 대가로 8억 5,000만 원을 지급하였다.

④ Around June 8, 2007, Defendant Kim* acquired KK from Defendant Park 00, and paid the acquisition price of KRW 200 million as the acquisition price, and Defendant Park 00 paid KRW 23 million as the acquisition price. On the other hand, Defendant Kim * paid KRW 23 million on the ground that the flight fee was paid for the flight fare.

(15) Defendant 00 paid KRW 267 million to Defendant Park 00 in return for the false performance report.

⑥ 피고인 김@@은 피고인 박OO에게 허위 실적신고의 대가로 매달 2,000만 원씩 지급하기로 하고, 합계 4억 9,000만 원을 지급하였다.

H) The Korea Trade Insurance Corporation of S.G. 3) The Corporation requested the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation to conduct a credit investigation on S.G., and the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation sent the credit rating of R. 4) on January 28, 201, on the ground that it is impossible to conduct a credit investigation on S.G., and that it was not registered in the regional business registration office, and it was not registered in the regional telephone number division. The Korea Trade Insurance Corporation sent the credit rating of R. 4) from January 12, 201 to January 17, 201, but failed to contact with S.G. from January 12, 2011.

There is no address at the address of the above company. The telephone number was received by a person who has not been involved in the wrong number.

3) Determination

A) In light of the following circumstances revealed from the facts recognized as above and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the charges of this part of the charges are fully found guilty on this part of the charges that the original contractor reported to the Overseas Construction Association by using the materials of the S.G. and the materials of the KADI, which have been kept in the office for a long time since the fact that the original contractor did not actually perform construction works in the S.G. and the Khuzam, as well as in the Khuzam. and the Khuzam.

① The effect of Korea-U.S.A. stated consistently to the effect that “I.S. GabO prepared a false statement on the construction work outside Korea.” The effect of Korea-U.S. GabO appears to be that it was not actually a construction work outside Korea.” The testimony of the above witness was reliable and that the above witness did not present a false statement on the completion of construction work, such as double use of checks and the arbitrary production and sealing of seals, and that the above witness did not present a false statement on the construction work outside Korea. Although the above witness did not present a false statement on the construction work outside Korea, it is difficult to view that the GabO ordered the construction work to be executed by the Defendant-U.S. GabO to present a false statement on the credibility of the construction work, it is also difficult to view that the Defendant-U.S. Dob made it difficult to present a false statement on the fact that the Defendant-U.S. Do was a witness at the time of signing the construction work outside Korea.

Defendant Park Park 00 did not report to Defendant Park 00 on a regular basis, and Defendant Park 00 did not have any evidence to deem that Defendant Park 00 had subscribed to the four-party insurance policy, and it is difficult to view that Defendant Park 00 employed Defendant Park Da as a full-time employee. Although the fact that money was remitted from Defendant Park 00’s current account was recognized, as seen in paragraph (b) below, it is difficult to view that the remitted money was not specified, and in light of the fact that the remitted money was wrongfully remitted, it is difficult to view that Defendant Park 00 was paid to C.

(5) It is difficult to believe that Defendant Park 00 engaged in the field management through C. - In the area where Defendant Park Park Y-Woo’s site management was conducted with the principal contractor S.G. or KADI, the construction work was conducted with the principal contractor S.G. or KADI, and these areas are located far away from each other, and the construction work is considerably larger than 1,06.2 billion won, and even if Defendant Park Y-Woo is employed as the third party site manager, it is difficult to believe that C managed the said site. Furthermore, if it is possible for Defendant Park Y-W to carry out the site management work by a lump sum subcontract method, it cannot be acknowledged as construction work records as legitimate.

④ In light of the record of Defendant Park 00 and C’s entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea, it is difficult to recognize that the actual work was done in Saudi Arabia. - From June 25, 2007 to November 24, 2009, C only entered the Republic of Korea with Hong Kong, China, and the Philippines eight times, and there was no fact of departure from the Republic of Korea with Saudi Arabia (Evidence No. 57 books of evidence 1,332 to 1,333), and it is difficult to view that the construction site was managed in Saudi Arabia. From January 1, 2005 to October 17, 2009, it is difficult to find that the construction work was conducted one time as Saudi Arabia and the period of stay for each of the Defendants 1 to 300 days, and even if it was difficult to find that the period of stay for each of the instant construction work was conducted in 1 to 30 days, the period of stay for each of the instant 1 to 30 days.

7) Defendant GabO appears to have performed the duty of preparing a false report on the performance of construction work at the office, and it seems that it was not actually equipped with the human organization and physical facilities capable of performing the construction work of 10 billion won in Saudi Arabia.

⑧ 그 밖에 피고인 박OO은 피고인 주##에게 M.Z.과 Khuzam 뿐만 아니라 S.G.과 관련된 허위의 은행거래내역서를 구해달라고 부탁한 점, 피고인 박00이 운영하는 미래이엔씨나 00가 실제 S.G.으로부터 공사를 하였다면 미래이엔씨나 00의 법인 통장에 공사대금이 입금되었어야 하는데, 이에 대한 금융자료를 제출하지 못하고 있는 점, 피고인 박00S.G.과 KADI로부터 실제로 공사를 하도급받아 공사하였다면, 그 공사 자료를 토대로 허위의 실적신고서를 작성할 수 있었을 텐데, 피고인 주##와 피고인 주00에게

It is a circumstance supporting the fact that the Defendant Park 00 was not awarded a contract for construction work by S.G., and KDAI, and that the construction work was not actually performed.

9) During the procedure for preservation of evidence (Evidence 57,902, page 4,902 of the evidence record), C made an on-site management of the construction site subcontracted by S.G. or KDAI as an employee of GabO. However, in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above statement as it is.

B) As to the evidence submitted by the Defendant

Defendant Park 00, asserting that he employed C and paid C benefits, submitted the evidence Nos. 1 (A. 1) and No. 2-1, 2, 3 (C. 25) as evidence as to the facts alleged in the above claim, but the above evidence alone cannot be acknowledged that C was an employee of Defendant Park 00.

According to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is difficult to accept the above amount of money from the above amount of money transferred to the account in the name of C in the current 00 deposit account, which is the wife of Defendant Park In 10, 2007.26.1 million won, November 29, 2008.1 million won, September 24, 2008, KRW 20 million, KRW 500 million, and KRW 59 million on April 22, 2010, KRW 720,000 on August 23, 203, and KRW 560,000 on March 10, 201, and KRW 560,000 on March 10, 201. However, it is difficult to recognize that the money transferred from the above amount of money transferred to the above amount of money deposited to the company of C without the necessity of the remittance. However, it is difficult to recognize that it is difficult to recognize that the money transferred to the above amount of money deposited to the company.

In addition, even if the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3 (re-certificate) is issued by the chamber of commerce and industry of Saudi Arabia, insofar as it cannot be found that the above-mentioned certificate was issued by the chamber of commerce and industry of Saudi Arabia, it is difficult to recognize that C, B, and clerk is an employee employed by the defendant Park 00.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3 (the details of each overseas remittance) and evidence Nos. 6 (the details of foreign currency transactions), E.I.D., Inc., transferred USD 150,000 on February 21, 2008, USD 200,000 on July 22, 2008 to future E.C. (MIRAE ENC COD.) (the details of this rule). This rule can not be deemed to have been acknowledged in light of the following facts: (a) on December 31, 2009, 266,338 U.S. dollars to future E.C.; (b) on October 13, 2010, YI transferred 79,903 U.S. dollars to UN on October 13, 208; and (c) on March 26, 2008, it is difficult to view it to have been transferred to C.D.

Therefore, the defendant Park 00 and the defense counsel's above assertion are not accepted.

B. Part concerning obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means by winning a contract for a government-funded project, and obstruction of duties to the branch offices assigned to the Korea Rural Community Corporation.

1) Summary of the assertion

피고인 박00과 변호인은, ① 별지 범죄일람표2 중 순번 1, 3~10 기재 업체들의 경우 M.Z. 또는 Khuzam으로부터 하도급받았다고 신고한 허위 실적을 제외하더라도 S.G.으로부터 하도급받아 직접 시공한 공사 실적만으로 각 발주 공사의 입찰참가조건을 상회하므로, 위 업체들의 공사실적증명서상의 공사 실적 중 일부가 허위라고 하더라도 위계공무집행방해죄 및 업무방해죄가 성립되지 않고, ② 별지 범죄일람표2 중 순번 11~13 기재 업체들의 경우, 주식회사 F, 주식회사 K의 사주들인 피고인 차00, 김이 피고인 박00을 통해 허위 공사실적을 양도받은 것은 사실이나, 이는 피고인 차00, 김**이 피고인 박00과 무관하게 단독으로 관급공사의 입찰에 참가하여 낙찰받은 것으로서, 피고인 박00의 위계공무집행방해죄 및 업무방해죄는 성립되지 않으며, ③ 별지 범죄일람표2 중 순번 14~17 기재 업체들의 경우, 주식회사 G, I 주식회사는 피고인 박00으로부터 양도받은 허위의 실적을 제외하더라도 S.G.로부터 하도급받아 직접 시공한 공사실적만으로도 각 발주공사의 입찰참가조건을 상회하고, 위 회사들의 사주인 피고인 김##가 피고인 박00과 무관하게 단독으로 관급공사의 입찰에 참가하여 낙찰받은 것이므로, 피고인에게 위계공무집행방해죄 및 업무방해죄가 성립하지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다.

2) As to the assertion that only the performance records subcontracted by S.G., replys to participation conditions.

Although the companies listed in the table 1, 3-10, 14-17 in the table 2 of the crime day table 2 did not actually perform the construction in S.G. and KDAI, the fact that C et al. has falsely reported construction performance to the Korea Overseas Construction Association by using construction-related data brought by C et al., as seen above. If so, the argument that the crime of obstruction of the performance of deceptive means and the crime of obstruction of business against Defendant GabO is not established under the premise that the above companies were directly executed under a subcontract from S.G., the argument that the above companies do not constitute the crime of obstruction of the performance of deceptive means and the crime of obstruction of business against Defendant GabO is without merit (it cannot be deemed that the domestic performance of the companies listed in the table 2 of the crime day table 1, 3-10, 14-1

In addition, with respect to the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established when the crime of interference with business is committed, and the above legal principles also apply to the crime of interference with business by deceptive means, even in the case where the performance itself does not require the result of interference with business, and the propriety or fairness of business is interfered with (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1721, Jan. 17, 2008). If the above businesses misleads or misleads the other party as the other party by participating in the tender and concluding the contract or the site to achieve the purpose of the act, the crime of interference with business is established as well as the risk of causing interference with business regardless of whether the result of interference with business actually occurred, and the crime of interference with business and the crime of interference with business is established as the crime of interference with business and the crime of interference with execution without deceptive means.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant Park 00 and his defense counsel's argument.

3) As to the argument that the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties or the crime of obstruction of business by fraudulent means is not established as it independently participated in the tender of government-funded construction regardless of Defendant Park 00

A) Relevant legal principles

In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy is not legally required, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize the crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, the conspiracy is established if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, even if there is no process of the whole conspiracy.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such conspiracys. However, where the Defendant denies the conspiracys, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the things given the nature of the things. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance ought to be reasonably determined based on normal empirical rule based on a close observation or analysis (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 201).

B) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① 피고인 박OO은 피고인 차00, 오00, 김**, 김 ##, 김@@과 각각 공모하여, 주식회사 F, 주식회사 K, 주식회사 G, I 주식회사, 주식회사 N에 대한 각 해외건설공사 실적을 허위로 신고하여 해외건설협회로부터 위 업체들에 대한 건설공사기성실적증명서를 각 발급받았고, 피고인 박OO은 그 대가로 위 피고인들로부터 합계 32억 원 상딩을 지급받았다.

② 피고인 차00, 오00, 김**, 김 ##, 김@@은 위 건설공사기성실적증명서를 대한건설협회에 제출하여 공사 실적을 인정받은 다음, 그 정을 모르는 대한건설협회의 직원으로 하여금 국가종합전자조달(G2B) 시스템에 위 공사 실적을 입력하게 하여, 주식회사 F 등 5개 업체가 거액의 관급공사를 낙찰받을 수 있는 자격을 갖추었다.

③ 그 후 피고인 차00, 오00, 김**, 김 ##, 김@@은 사우디아라비아에서 건설공사를 실제로 수주받아 시공한 것처럼 공사 실적을 가장한 후, 별지 범죄일람표2 중 순번 11~18 기재와 같이 관급공사의 입찰에 참가하여 건설공사를 각각 낙찰받았다.

C) Determination

위 인정사실 및 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들로부터 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 해외건설협회에 해외건설공사 실적을 허위로 신고하는 궁극적 목적은 공사 실적을 인정받아 관급공사의 입찰에 참가함으로써 공사를 낙찰받기 위한 것인 점, ② 피고인 차00, 오00, 김**, 김 ##, 김@@은 허위 실적을 이용하여 관급공사를 낙찰받음으로써 얻을 수 있는 이익을 기대하면서 피고인 박OO에게 허위 실적 신고에 대한 대가를 지급하였고, 피고인 박00도 위와 같은 점을 잘 알고 있었던 점, ③ 피고인 박00도 위 피고인들이 허위 실적을 이용하여 관급공사의 입찰에 참가하리라는 점을 충분히 예상하고 허위 공사실적을 제공한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 설령 피고인 차00, 오00, 김**, 김##, 김@@이 피고인 박00과 허위 공사실적을 토대로 관급공사를 낙찰받는 것을 직접 모의하지 않았다고 하더라도, 피고인 박00은 위 피고인들이 허위 실적을 이용하여 관급공사의 입찰에 참가할 것이라는 점을 충분히 인식하면서도 이를 용인하여 허위의 공사실적을 제공하고 해외건설협회에 허위 실적을 신고함으로써, 자신의 범행의사를 실행에 옮겼다고 봄이 상당하므로, 결국 위 피고인들은 각각 피고인 박00 과 사이에 위계 공무집행방해 및 업무방해 범행에 관하여 암묵적으로 상통하여 공모관계가 성립되었다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, on a different premise, the Defendant Park 00 and the defense counsel's argument on this part is without merit.

2. Determination on the part on the evidence of violation of trust by Defendant Park 00, Kim 00

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant Park 00, Kim00 and his defense counsel paid KRW 100 million to Defendant Kim Jong-jin on April 21, 2008, KRW 30 million on April 21, 2008, KRW 22,40 million on April 22, 2008, and KRW 100 million on April 26, 26 of the same month to Defendant Kim Jong-jin in a situation that is economically difficult to obtain ice Kim 00. On February 10, 2009, Defendant Kim Jong-jin remitted money of KRW 150 million to the account under the name of Kim Jong-jin Kim Jong-jin on February 10, 2009. In the process of paying the above money, Defendant Park Jong-jin and Defendant Kim-jin did not make an illegal solicitation.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another's business obtains property or benefits in property in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and the acquisition of property or benefits does not require the person who administers another's business to accept such a solicitation. The term "duty" refers to the business entrusted by the person who administers another's business, which includes not only the original business, but also the business closely related thereto, and the term "illegal solicitation" refers to a violation of social rules and the principle of good faith. In determining this, the contents of the solicitation and the amount and form of the property received or provided in relation thereto, and the protection of legal interests and interests of the person who administers the business, which are related thereto, should be comprehensively considered, and the solicitation is not necessarily explicitly required, but implicitly made (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10681, Sept. 9, 2010).

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Defendant Kim 00 entered the Overseas Construction Association on November 8, 199, and served as a member of the Technology Center for Small Enterprises from March 30, 2006, as a vice head of the Engineering Information Center from March 1, 2008, as a vice head of the Project Support Office from March 1, 2009, and was in charge of accepting reports on the performance of overseas construction works from March 30, 2006, and issuing reports on the performance of overseas construction works. Defendant Kim 00 primarily was in charge of reporting the performance of overseas works of large enterprises, and Park Jong-soo was in charge of reporting the performance of overseas works of small and medium enterprises, and Defendant Kim 00 was in charge of reporting the performance of overseas works of small and medium enterprises, and Defendant Kim Jong-soo was in charge of reporting the performance of overseas works of small and medium enterprises.

② On April 17, 2008, Defendant KimO opened a new corporate bank account (038-08064-01-011), and Defendant Park 00 wired the total amount of KRW 100 million to the above corporate bank account in the name of Defendant Kim Jong-soo (696301-01-262542) in the name of the wife of 00, using the name of 69630, D, and Han-soo used the name of 300 on April 21, 2008; KRW 22,30 million on April 22, 2008; KRW 40 million on April 26, 200, and KRW 100 million on the same month.

③ Korea reported on the performance of the construction work in 2009 at the beginning of 2010. However, the person in charge of the Overseas Construction Association pointed out that the photographs on the construction site are not consistent with the official process, such as civil engineering and construction. In this case, Defendant 200 stated that he was out of the clothes of employees of the Korea Overseas Construction Association while intending to call on the running water, and reported that the running water was out of the clothes of the employees of the Korea Overseas Construction Association, and Defendant 200 did not indicate that the running water was unfolded without specific instructions to the running water. As a matter of the performance report, Defendant 200 argued Defendant 200 and Kim Jong-sik, the head of the Korea Overseas Construction Association, the head of the Korea Overseas Construction Association, and issued the performance report.

④ At the time of filing an application for issuance of a certificate of completion of overseas works with Defendant KimO, the Defendant Kim 00 submitted a photograph on the construction site. The Defendant Kim o0 issued a certificate of completion of overseas works by stating that “this company is equal to the monthly photographs.” From the next day, the photograph was well-founded and issued a certificate of completion of overseas works.

⑤ On April 23, 2008, Defendant Kim 00 sent to Defendant Gao on a summary of the following: “The document of his letter of request ? see Dop Kim00. He sent the document of his letter of request ? The contract must be prepared separately in English. The other is what is related to the omission of official correspondence in low statistics DB and the registration in E. When sending the document of his rare test in Arabic E, he may not request the document of confirmation in his official letter.”

The agreement draft between S.G., 00, and E was prepared and attached to the agreement draft between S.G., 00, and Co., Ltd. (Evidence Record 57 book No. 4,791 to 4,804 pages), and Defendant 00 reported this to the Overseas Construction Association.

④ Defendant Kim Jong-jin, who was registered as the representative director of the corporation and Taesan Power Co., Ltd. operated by Defendant Park Jong-jin, as the representative director of the corporation, and as the director of the general construction without being a corporation, was registered as the representative director or director under the name of the corporation, and the Kim Jong-jin did not actually perform the duties of the representative director or director in each of the above corporations

(No.2) On February 10, 2009, Defendant Park 00 remitted KRW 150 million to the account in the name of Kim Jong-jin (1002-037-605130). The said money was transferred from February 10, 2009 to the Internet banking account in the name of Defendant Kim Jong-jin (32030459692). The said transfer was executed at the office of the Overseas Construction Association of Defendant Kim 00.

8) The Korea Construction Association asked Defendant Kim 00 of the facts that the results of overseas works are more than the size of the construction company, and Defendant Kim 00 responded to the following: “The Korea Construction Association may investigate the results of its inspection only with clear clear evidence, evidence, etc., which may be reviewed.” On November 2009, the Korea Construction Association demanded the Korea Overseas Construction Association to inspect the 21 companies which are the most problematic through the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. On January 201, 2010, the Korea Construction Association responded that there was no error in recognizing the results of the inspection on the 21 companies.

3) Determination as to whether there was an "illegal solicitation"

위 인정사실 및 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들로부터 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 박00과 피고인 김OO의 친분관계에 비추어 단지 살림에 보태 쓰라는 이유만으로 1억 원이라는 적지 않은 돈을 주었다는 것은 선뜻 믿기 어려운 점, ② 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 박00은 사우디아라비아 등 해외에서 인력과 장비를 투입하여 실제로 공사하지 않았음에도(피고인 박00 주장에 의하더라도, 원청업체로부터 공사를 도급받아 현지 건설회사에 일괄하도급하는 방식으로 공사하였다는 것임), 해외건설사업에 큰 도움을 줄 만한 전문기술이나 공사수주능력이 있어 보이지 않는 피고인 김00에게 채용이 확정되지도 않은 상황에서 1억 원이나 되는 스카 우트비를 선지급한다는 것은 선뜻 납득이 가지 않는 점(실제로 피고인 박00이 피고인김00에게 1억 원을 지급한 2008. 4.부터 이 사건이 불거져 피고인 김00에 대한 조사가 처음 이루어진 2010. 3. 23.까지 피고인 김00에 대한 채용은 이루어지지 않았다), ③ 피고인 박00 이 피고인 김00의 동생 김종진으로부터 명의를 빌려 주식회사 등 피고인 박OO이 운영하는 회사의 이사로 등재한 사실은 있으나, 피고인 박00이 김종진 명의의 우리은행 계좌로 송금한 1억 5,000만 원은 명의대여의 대가로 보기에 큰 액수이고, 김종진 명의의 위 계좌는 실제 피고인 김00이 사용하고 있던 계좌인바, 위 1억 5,000만 원은 김종진이 아닌 피고인 김00에게 지급된 것으로 봄이 상당한 점, ④ 위 1억 5,000만 원에 대하여, 김종진은 명의대여의 대가라면서 당초 명의대여 대가에 관한 구체적 금액 합의는 없었다고 진술하고 있고, 피고인 박OO은 김종진에게 주식회사 0 주식의 20%를 양도하였는데, 주식회사 0을 매각하면서 김종진에게 양도하였던 주식회사 O의 주식 20%를 김종진이 포기하는 대가로 주식양도대금 7억 5,000만 원 중 20%인 1억 5,000만 원을 지급한 것이라고 주장하고 있는바(김종진은 피고인 박OO의 주장과 달리 주식회사 0의 주식을 양도받은 사실은 없다고 진술하고 있음), 위 1억 5,000만 원을 주고받은 피고인 박00과 김종진의 진술이 일치하지 않는 점, ⑤ 김종진은 위 1억 5,000만 원을 피고인 김00에게 채무변제 명목으로 지급한 것이라고 진술하고 있으나, 김종진의 피고인 김00에 대한 채무 부담사실이 객관적인 금융자료에 의하여 입증되지 않는 이상, 김종진이 위 돈을 피고인 김00에게 채무변제 명목으로 지급한 것으로 볼 수 없고, 위 돈은 피고인 박00이 피고인 김OO에게 지급한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인 김00이 피고인 박OO에게 보낸 이메일에 첨부된 합의서에 주식회사00 와 주식회사 E 이외에 사우디아라비아 업체인 S.G.의 명의가 포함되어 있는바, 피고인 김00이 해외업체의 명의가 포함된 영문 합의서까지 작F 준 것은 피고인 김OO의 주장과 같은 중소건설업체에 대한 지원업무로 보기 어렵고, 피고인 박00으로부터 금 품수수와 함께 업무와 관련된 청탁을 받았다고 볼 수 있는 점, ⑦ 피고인 박이 허위의 해외공사 실적을 신고하고, 그 신고 과정에서 해외건설협회 담당 직원으로부터 실적 신고서의 보완을 요구받았음에도, 해외건설협회 직원들의 눈치를 보는 것이 아니라 오히려 해외건설협회 직원들의 옷을 벗겨버린다고 압력을 행사할 수 있었던 것도, 피고인 박00이 피고인 김00에게 부정한 청탁과 관련하여 2억 5,000만 원을 제공하였기 때문에 가능한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑧ 피고인 김OO은 피고인 박OO의 적반하장적 태도(허위의 해외공사 실적을 신고하고도, 그 보완을 요구하는 해외건설협회 담당자 유수종에게 항의하면서 옷을 벗겨버린다고 협박함)를 보고하는 유수종에게 상급자로서 적절한 지시를 하지 않고 오히려 미안해하는 태도를 보인 점, ⑨ 피고인 김00이 주로 대기업의 해외건설 실적신고를 담당하였다고 하더라도, 해외건설 실적신고 업무를 담당하는 프로젝트지원실의 실장으로 중소건설업체를 담당하는 직원들에게 영향력을 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있었던 점, ① 피고인 김OO은 경찰과 검찰 제1, 2회 조사 때까지 범행을 부인하다가 검찰 제3회 조사(증거기록 57 책 18권 10,595면)에서 '피고인 박00 이 2008. 4. 중순경 해외건설을 계속해야 하니 도와달라고 하면서 1억 원을 송금해 준 사실이 있다'는 취지로 진술하였는바(그 이후에 다시 범행을 부인하였다), 피고인 김00이 허위로 범행을 자백할 이유가 없다는 점에서 위 자백은 신빙성이 있어 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 박00이 해외건설공사 실적을 신고함에 있어 편의를 보아 달라는 취지의 부정한 청탁이 묵시적으로라도 있었다고 인정하기에 충분하다.

Therefore, the above argument between the defendant Park 00, Kim 00 and the defense counsel is without merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

피고인과 변호인은, M.Z.의 General Manager로 일한 적이 있지만 자신이 직접 사업을 하고자 2006. 12.말경 M.Z.에서 퇴사하였고, 2007. 10.경 봉경건설 현지 법인을 설립한 후 M.Z.과는 아무런 관련이 없는바, 결국 피고인 주00는 피고인 박00, 주##와 공모하여 해외건설협회에 허위로 실적을 신고하기로 피고인 박00, 주##와 공모한 사실이 없다고 주장한다.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① From around 1991, Defendant 00 worked as M. Z. Genmanger6, the representative of M. Z., entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant would have the remainder of the Defendant, who would pay the said son only 3 to 15% of the profits when the Defendant received a contract for the construction, on the basis of the fee when the Defendant received a contract for the construction. In fact, the construction was performed within M. Z as its own business.

② At around 2009, at the invitation of Defendant State 00, he visited M.Z and office located in S.A. in S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.s. that it was 10s that it would give monthly salary and incentives.

③ Defendant 00 was able for a foreigner to establish a local corporation in Saudi Arabia, and around October 2007, Defendant 1, as a representative director, established the corporation in Saudi Arabia to operate the said corporation.

④ On July 24, 2008, Defendant 00 U.S. dollars 200,000 which was not reported to the head of the customs office at the Incheon Public Port, and was discovered to have been issued a summary order of KRW 7 million as a violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act at the Incheon District Court on September 9, 2008. At the time of the investigation in the above case, Defendant 1 was the representative director of M.Z., and M.Z., Defendant 13 employees working at M. Z., who had U.S. dollars to pay for the 13-month salary).

⑤ KOTRA(한국무역투자진흥공사)의 직원 이관석은 2009. 3. 20. 오성건설 주식회사로부터 사우디아라비아에서 공사하였다고 신고한 주식회사 @@과 주식회사 K의 실적이 의심스러우니 이를 확인하여 달라는 내용의 이메일을 받고, 다음날 피고인 주00에게 위 내용을 검토해 달라는 내용의 이메일을 발송하였는데, 피고인 주00는 같은 날 이관석이 보낸 이메일을 확인한 다음, 이를 피고인 박OO에게 전달하였다(증거기록57 책 5권 3,622면 ~ 3,626면).

⑥ 피고인 주00의 동생인 피고인 주##는 2004년경부터 봉경건설 주식회사의 국법인에서 근무하고 있고, 2007년경부터 피고인 박OO에게 M.Z., Khuzam 관련 공사개요서, 공사내역서, 현장사진, 도면 등 해외건설공사 실적 신고에 필요한 자료를 제공하고 월별 기성금 내역을 임의로 계산해 준 다음, 피고인 박00으로부터 그 대가를 지급받아 왔다.

⑦ 피고인 박OO은 2008.9.1. 자신의 처인 현00 명의의 국민은행 계좌(696301-01-262542)에서 피고인 주00 측 송명자의 계좌로 200,000,000원, 2009. 10. 5. 자신 명의의 국민은행 계좌(696302-01-297152)에서 피고인 주00의 계좌로 38,000,000원 합계 238,000,000원을 송금하였다(증거기록 58책 13권 8,175면, 8,176면). ⑧ 피고인 박00은 피고인 주00에게 허위 공사자료에 맞추어 허위의 은행거래내 역서를 만들어 줄 것을 부탁하였는데, 피고인 주00가 이를 거절하자 피고인 주##에게 부탁하였다. 피고인 주##는 2010. 12. 14. 피고인 박OO의 직원인 한효은과 함께 사우 디아라비아로 출국하여, 해외건설공사 실적 신고를 위해 해외건설협회에 제출한 허위 내용의 기성금수령내역에 맞춰 원청업체인 M.Z., Khuzam에 대한 사우디아라비아 은행 거래내역서를 만들어 이를 피고인 박OO에게 제공하였고, M.Z.의 General Manager인 모하미드 압둘라 자빈에게 은행거래내역서를 작F 준 대가로 봉경건설 주식회사의 자금으로 3억 5,500만 원 상당을 지급하였다(증거기록 58책 14권 8,670면 ~ 8,679면). 피고인 주00는 2007. 3. 21. 대통령 노무현으로부터 우리나라 산업발전에 이바지한 공로로 포장증을 받았는바, 위 포장증에 주00는 M.Z.의 General Manager로 표시되어 있다(증거기록 58 책 11권 7,226면).

(10) Examining the publicity materials of the Dobong Construction Corporation, the construction performance column includes the performance records that Defendant 00 received as the General M. Zerger in the construction performance column.

① As for the Defendant’s State 00, the Chowon Construction Co., Ltd., the Managing Director 8) stated that “The State0 is aware of the representative of Saudi Arabia M. Z., the local subsidiary of Saudi Arabia, and this company’s subcontracting was awarded a subcontract for the primary construction work, and it appears that it plays a certain role in setting up overseas performance in E., a corporation.”

② 피고인 김##는 피고인 박00, 피고인 주##, 피고인 주00와 함께 사우디아라 비아로 갔는데, 그 때 처음 피고인 주00를 만났으며, 피고인 박00으로부터 피고인 주00가 해외에서 실제 시공하는 사람으로 M.Z., Khuzam, 봉경건설 소속이라는 말을 들었다.

③ Defendant Kim*, along with Defendant Park 00, visited Ma.Z. office in Saudi Arabia, visited the site of M.Z. Corporation, and Defendant 00 was met at the salary construction office in a problem.

⑭ 피고인 박00의 피고인 주00에 관한 검찰 진술내용은 다음과 같다. - (ㄱ) '실제 하도급, 재하도급 계약을 하지 않고 계약을 한 것처럼 허위 서류를 작성하여 신고한 경우가 있습니다. 그리고 그렇게 하는 것에는 주00가 개입이 되어 있습니다. 전부 주00 와 이야기를 해서 자료를 받고 그 대가로 주는 것도 주00와 상의를 한 것입니다.(증거기록 58 책 17권 10,022면)', (ㄴ) '주00가 사우디아라비아에서 공사를 크게 하고 있으니까, 제가 주00에게 실제 하고 있는 공사를 이용하여 자료를 만들어 실적신고를 하자고 제안을 하였고, 주00가 동의를 하여 작업을 하게 된 것입니다(증거기록 58책 17권 10,058면), (ㄷ) '처음부터 주00와 상의를 하여 실적신고를 한 것이 맞습니다. 주OO는 사우디아라비아에서 공사를 많이 하고 있어서 주00에게 주00가 한 공사를 이용하여 국내 업체들의 실적으로 신고를 하자고 말을 하게 된 것입니다. 주##와 제가 레벨이 다르지 않습니까? 주00가 저의 파트너이고, 주##는 그냥 직원 개념입니다. 주00의 도움이 없었다면 도저히 할 수 없는 일입니다. M.Z.은 주00가 실질적으로 운영하였습니다. 사우디아라비아에 있는 주00가 M.Z.에서 한 공사 관련 자료를 보내주기도 하였고, 실제 자료를 보내주는 업무는 주##가 담당하였습니다. 그래서 제가 주##로부터 M.Z.과의 하도급계약서, 도면, 사진 등을 교부받았습니다. 주00가 Khuzam도 잘 안다고 하면서 Khuzam의 공사 관련 자료도 보내주었습니다(증거기록 58책 17권 10,168면 ~ 10,171면).'

C. Determination

1) 위 인정사실 및 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들로부터 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 주00가 2007. 10.경 사우디아라비아에서 봉경건설 주식회사를 별도로 설립하기는 하였으나, 이러한 이유만으로 M.Z.에서 자신의 사업으로 다년간 공사를 수주하면서 쌓은 M.Z. 명의의 실적과 성과를 뒤로 한 채 곧바로 M.Z.과의 관계를 단절하였다고 보기 어려운 점, ② 피고인 주00가 2008. 7.경 외국환거래법 위반 사건으로 조사를 받으면서 자신을 M.Z.의 대표이사라고 신분을 밝혔는바, 피고인 주00는 사우디아라비아에서 봉경건설 주식회사를 설립한 이후에도 계속하여 M.Z.과의 관계를 유지해 왔다고 보이는 점, ③ 피고인 주00의 친동생인 피고인 주##는 피고인 박00에게 M.Z., Khuzam에서 시공한 공사 관련 자료를 제공하였는바, 위와 같은 자료 제공에는 사우디아라비아에서 M.Z.을 실질적으로 관리하고 있는 피고인 주00의 도움이 있었다고 보이는 점, ④ 피고인 주00가 KOTRA 직원으로부터 온 이메일을 곧바로 피고인 박OO에게 전달하고, 피고인 박00이 피고인 주00에게 공사자료에 맞추어 허위 은행거래내역서를 만들어 달라고 부탁한 것에 비추어 보면, 공사자료의 제공과 허위 공사 실적 문제와 관련하여 피고인 박00과 피고인 주00가 이해관계를 같이 하고 있다고 봄이 상당한 점, 5 피고인 박00은 피고인 주00 측에게 2억 3,800만 원을 송금하였는데, 이에 대하여 피고인 주00는 개인적인 금전거래 관계라고 주장하고 있으나, 위 주장을 뒷받침할 만한 자료가 없어 위 송금은 공사자료 제공의 대가를 지급한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인 주##가 허위 내용의 사우디아라비아 은행 거래내역서를 만들기 위해 봉경건설 주식회사의 자금 3억 5,500만 원 상당을 사용하였는바, 봉경건설 주식회사의 대표이사인 피고인 주00가 거액의 회사자금 지출 및 그 목적에 관하여 모르고 있었다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑦ 피고인 주00는 이 사건으로 처음 조사받으면서 “1991년도에 알 자라니가 운영하는 M.Z.에서 상무격으로 사우디 건설공사 수주, 재하청공사, 총괄적인 인력관리를 하다가 2007년도에 제가 법인을 설립하여 봉경의 대표이사가 되었기 때문에 M.Z.의 상무직으로 근무하지 못하기 때문에 고문 직함으로 현재까지 이르고 있다.”고 진술한 점(증거기록 57책 3권 1,668면), ⑧ 피고인 박OO은 검찰에서 허위 실적 서류 작업을 하던 2009년에 피고인 주00가 M.Z.의 실제 운영자였다고 진술한 점(증거기록 58 책 17권 10,024면, 10,062면), ⑨ 피고인박00은 이 법정에 이르러, 해외건설협회에 허위 공사 실적을 신고한 부분에 대하여 피고인 주00와의 공모관계를 부인하고 있으나, 검찰 조사(증거기록 58책 17권 10,022면, 10,058면, 10,168면, 10,169면)에서는 3회에 걸쳐 피고인 주00와의 공모관계를 일관되게 인정하였는바, 피고인 박OO의 위 검찰 진술은 그 내용의 구체성과 전후 맥락에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인 주00에 대한 배신감으로 순간 꾸며낸 것이라고 보기 어렵고, 달리 허위 진술을 하였다고 인정할 자료가 없어 이를 신빙할 수 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 주00는 그가 제공하는 관련 자료들이 허위 공사실적에 사용된다는 것을 충분히 알고 그의 영향력 아래에 있는 M.Z.과 Khuzam의 공사자료를 동생인 피고인 주##를 통하여 피고인 박00에게 제공하였는바, 이와 같이 피고인 주00가 피고인 박00이 해외건설협회에 허위 공사실적을 신고한다는 점을 인식하면서도 이를 용인하여 공사자료를 제공하였다면, 피고인 박00, 피고인 주00, 피고인 주##의 해외건설 협회에 대한 업무방해의 공모관계를 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, the defendant 00 and his defense counsel's above assertion are not accepted.

4. 피고인 주##, 김@@의 주장에 대한 판단

A. Summary of the assertion

피고인 주##와 변호인은, ① 피고인 박00에게 허위 실적 신고에 필요한 자료를 제공하는 등으로 도움을 준 사실은 있으나, 피고인 박00의 범행 전반에 걸쳐 공모한 것은 아니고, ② 해외건설협회의 실적신고 담당자인 피고인 김00이 피고인 박00으로부터 부정한 청탁을 받고 금원을 수수한 다음, 피고인 박00의 실적 신고가 허위라는 정을 알면서도 이를 수리한 것이므로, 해외건설협회에 대하여 위계에 의한 업무방해죄가 성립되지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다.

피고인 김@@과 변호인도, 피고인 김00이 피고인 박00의 실적 신고가 허위라는 정을 알면서도 이를 수리한 것이므로, 해외건설협회에 대하여 위계에 의한 업무방해죄가 성립될 수 없다는 취지로 주장한다.

나. 피고인 주##의 공모 여부

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① 피고인 주##는 2004년경부터 봉경건설 주식회사의 국내 법인에서 근무하고 있고, 2007년경부터 피고인 박OO에게 M.Z., Khuzam 관련 공사개요서, 공사내역서, 현장사진, 도면 등 해외건설공사 실적 신고에 필요한 자료를 제공하고, 월별 기성금 내역을 임의로 계산해 주었다(제3회 공판조서 중 증인 한효은의 진술기재, 증인 박OO의 증언).

② 피고인 박OO은 2008. 7. 31.부터 2010. 10. 11.까지, 자신 명의의 국민은행 계좌(696302-01-297152)에서 피고인 주##의 계좌로 68,100,000원, 피고인 주##의 처남인 장세남의 계좌로 100,000,000원, 자신의 처인 현00 명의의 국민은행 계좌(696301-01-262542)에서 피고인 주##의 계좌로 803,548,470원, 피고인 주##의 처인 장영희의 계좌로 80,000,000원, 피고인 주##의 처남인 장세남의 계좌로 156,190,000원 등 합계 1,207,838,470원을 송금하였다(증거기록 58책 13권 8,177면 ~ 8,180면). ③ 피고인 주##는 2010. 12. 14. 피고인 박00의 직원인 한효은과 함께 사우디 아라비아로 출국하여, 해외건설공사 실적 신고를 위해 해외건설협회에 제출한 허위 내용의 기성금수령내역에 맞춰 원청업체인 M.Z., Khuzam에 대한 사우디아라비아 은행거 래내역서를 만들어 이를 피고인 박00에게 제공하였고, M.Z.의 General Manager인 모하미드 압둘라 자빈에게 은행거래내역서를 작F 준 대가로 봉경건설 주식회사의 자금으로 3억 5,500만 원 상당을 지급하였다(증거기록 58책 14권 8,670면 ~ 8,679면). 2) 위 인정사실 및 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들로부터 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 허위공사 실적 중 원청업체가 M.Z., Khuzam인 부분은 피고인 주#가 가져다 준 자료를 기초로 허위의 실적 신고가 이루어진 점, ② 피고인 주##는 피고인 박00으로부터 공사자료 제공의 대가로 상당한 액수의 돈을 지급받은 점{피고인 주##는 피고인 박00으로부터 지급받은 돈 중 2009. 10. 12. 받은 2억 원, 2009. 10. 20. 받은 2억 원, 2010. 3. 8. 받은 3억 원은 대여금이라고 주장하므로 보건대, 주##의 계좌에서 현00의 계좌로 2010. 7. 31.부터 2010. 11. 30.까지 4차례에 걸쳐 각 200만 원이 송금된 사실이 인정되기는 하였으나, 위 송금이 이 사건에 관한 피고인 박OO에 대한 최초 조사(2010. 2. 23.) 이후에 있었던 것이어서 위 돈을 이자라고 단정하기 어렵고, 공사자료 제공의 대가로 피고인 주##에게 돈을 지급하였다는 증인 박OO의 증언에 비추어 보면, 피고인 주##의 대여금 주장은 받아들이기 어려움), ③ 피고인 주##가 피고인 박00으로부터 공사자료 제공의 대가로 받았다고 인정하는 돈이 1억 7,710만 원이나 되고, 위 돈을 받은 시기도 2008년이어서 '공사자료 제공 초기에 그 자료가 허위실적 신고에 사용되는지 몰랐다'는 피고인 주#의 변명은 받아들이기 어려운 점, ④ 피고인 주##는 2010. 12. 14. 봉경건설 주식회사의 자금을 사용하면서까지 피고인 박00에게 허위 내용의 은행거래내역서를 만들어 제공한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 주##는 해외건설협회에 대한 업무방해 범행에 관하여 단순히 피고인박OO에게 도움을 주는 정도를 넘어, 피고인 박00과 사이에 해외건설협회에 허위 공사실적을 신고하려는 의사의 합치가 있었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 그 공모관계를 인정할 수 있다.

피고인 주##는, 처음에는 실적 작업을 위하여 공사 자료를 제공한 것이 아니라 피고인 박00으로 하여금 해외건설 공사수주를 위한 가격정보를 얻게 하기 위해서 공사자료를 제공하였다가 나중에 피고인 박00에게 제공한 공사 자료가 실적 작업을 위해 쓰인다는 것을 알게 되었다고 주장하나, 해외건설 공사수주를 위한 가격정보를 얻기 위하여 공사 자료가 필요한지 선뜻 납득이 가지 않고, 박OO은 이 법정에서 ‘처음부터 실적 작업을 위해서 주##로부터 서류를 받았다'고 증언하였으며, 주##도 이 법정에서 ‘박OO으로부터 지급받은 돈 중 1억 7,710만 원은 공사자료 제공의 대가이다.'라고 증언하고 있는바, 피고인 박00 이 피고인 주##에게 불리한 진술을 할 이유가 없는 점 및 피고인 주##가 피고인 박00으로부터 공사자료의 제공 대가로 받았다고 인정하는 금액이 1억 7,710만 원에 이르는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인 박OO의 위 진술은 신빙성이 있고, 결국 피고인 주##는 처음부터 그가 제공한 공사자료가 허위 공사실적 신고에 쓰인다는 것을 알고도 피고인 박OO에게 공사자료를 제공한 것이므로, 그 공모관계를 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에 선 피고인 주##의 주장은 이유 없다. 또한, 피고인 주##는 자신이 피고인 박OO에게 자료를 제공한 사실을 인정하면서, 피고인 박00이 임의로 위 자료를 토대로 새로운 계약서 등을 만들었기 때문에 이 부분에 대하여는 공모관계가 인정되지 않는다는 취지의 주장을 하나, 설령 피고인 주## 주장과 같이 피고인 박00이 공사 자료를 분리하여 새로운 계약서 등을 만들었다고 하더라도, 이와 같은 새로운 계약서 등이 피고인 주##로부터 제공받은 자료를 토대로 만들어진 것이고, 피고인 주##도 피고인 박00이 제공받은 자료를 토대로 새로운 계약서를 만든다는 것을 충분히 예상할 수 있었다고 보이므로, 피고인 박00이 만든 새로운 계약서 부분에 대하여도 피고인 주##와 피고인 박00 사이의 공모관계를 인정할 수 있다.

따라서 피고인 주##와 변호인의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.다. 해외건설협회에 대한 위계에 의한 업무방해죄 성립 여부

1) In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, to achieve the purpose of the actor’s act

The crime of interference with business refers to causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party, and using it. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if it does not require the result of interference with business to actually occur, and there is a risk of causing interference with business, and the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, not in itself, (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1721, Jan. 17, 2008).

2) As seen earlier, Defendant Kim 00 served as the head of the project support office in charge of receiving the report on the performance of overseas construction works from the Overseas Construction Association and issuing the report on the performance of overseas construction works. Defendant Park 00 received KRW 250 million from Defendant Park 100 to the other employees in charge of reporting the performance of overseas construction works at the time of reporting the performance of overseas construction works. However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant Park 00 was aware of the fact that other employees in charge of reporting the performance of overseas construction works in addition to Defendant Kim 00 were false, the above employees were unaware of the fact that Defendant Park 200 reported the performance of the overseas construction works were false, and so long as the above employees believed that Defendant Park 00 reported the performance of the overseas construction works in good faith, the propriety and fairness of reporting the performance of overseas construction works by the Overseas Construction Association is hindered.

따라서 피고인 박00의 해외건설협회에 대한 위계에 의한 업무방해죄가 성립한다고 할 것이므로, 이와 다른 전제에 선 피고인 주##, 김@@과 변호인들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant Park 009

Considering that the Defendant’s abuse of the overseas construction performance verification system does not function properly, the Defendant transferred the government-funded construction performance to a domestic company that wants to obtain a successful bid or falsely report the construction performance, and acquired considerable benefits for the consideration thereof. The Defendant’s each crime of this case infringed the fairness of bidding for government-funded construction works, and furthermore, the Defendant’s crime of this case’s crime is not very good. The Defendant’s false performance of overseas works reported by the Defendant amounts to KRW 338.5 billion in total, and based on the false performance, the total amount of government-funded construction works awarded by domestic companies is equal to KRW 76.4 billion in total, and considering that the Defendant’s criminal act of this case was committed from the domestic company of this case to the National Police Agency to the point that the Defendant acquired large human rights more than KRW 6 billion in consideration of the false performance and false report from the domestic company of this case, and that the Defendant did not submit additional criminal records to the National Police Agency to the Korea National Police Association for the reason that it did not interfere with the investigation.

Provided, That the same punishment as the order shall be determined in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment of a fine or heavier punishment, and that the defendant has committed a part of the crime, and the fact that

2. Defendant Kim 00, while working as the head of the Overseas Construction Association’s project support office, etc., destroyed the integrity of the business administrator by receiving a considerable amount of money of KRW 250 million in return for illegal solicitation from Defendant Park Park 00. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the Defendant, who reversed his statement from the investigation agency to the court, did not violate his/her mistake by denying the crime, etc., the Defendant need to strictly punish him/her.

However, the same type as the order shall be determined in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is the first offender and has served in good faith by the Overseas Construction Association.

3. 피고인 주00, 주## 피고인들이 해외공사 관련 자료를 조작하여 해외건설협회에 공사 실적을 허위로 신고하기로 피고인 박00과 공모하고, 피고인 박OO에게 허위 실적 신고에 필요한 해외 공사 관련 자료를 제공함으로써, 관급공사 입찰의 공정성을 해하고 건설시장의 기본질서를 교란시킨 점, 피고인 박00으로부터 해외공사 관련 자료의 대가로 거액의 금원을 지급받은 점 등을 고려하면 피고인들을 엄히 처벌할 필요가 있다.

다만 피고인 주00에게 벌금형 이상의 처벌 전력이 없고 피고인 주##는 초범인 점, 피고인들이 피고인 박00의 요청으로 허위 실적 신고에 필요한 해외공사 관련 자료를 피고인 박00에게 제공하는 등으로 이 사건 범행에 가담하였으나, 적극적으로 이 사건 범행을 주도하지는 않은 점 등을 유리한 정상으로 참작하여 주문과 같은 형을 정한다.

4. 피고인 오00, 김##, 차00, 김**, 장00, 김@@10)

피고인들은 피고인 박00과 공모하여 관급공사를 낙찰받기 위해 허위로 해외공사 실적을 신고하여 공사 실적을 부풀린 다음 관급공사의 입찰에 참가하였고, 이로 인해 정상적인 방법으로 공사실적을 쌓아온 다수의 선량한 업체들에게 관급공사를 수주하지 못하는 피해를 입히고, 나아가 기성공사 실적을 기반으로 한 국내 입찰제도의 근간을 흔드는 결과를 초래하였는바, 피고인들의 이 사건 범행의 죄질이 가볍다고 할 수 없다. 다만 피고인들이 뒤늦게나마 자신의 잘못을 깊이 반성하고 있는 점, 피고인 오00는 초범이고 피고인 김##, 김**, 장00, 김@@은 벌금형 이상의 처벌 전력이 없는 점, 이 사건 범행으로 인하여 피고인들이 낙찰받은 공사계약이 취소되고, 입찰참가자격제한이라는 행정처분을 받는 등 사업상 큰 타격을 받은 점 등의 정상을 참작하고, 피고인별 허위 실적 신고액 및 낙찰받은 관급공사의 수주액 등을 감안하여 주문과 같은 형을 정한다.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges of the presiding judge and assistant judges

Judges Hong Jin-young

Judge Kim Gin-hun

1) Personal immigration records (Evidence No. 14 No. 14, No. 1, No. 57, No. 321, No. 14) of Defendant GaO

2) Judgment of the Seoul Administrative Court on November 11, 201 on the case of revocation of disposition to suspend the use of overseas construction work performance

(Evidence Records 58No. 10,108; Defendant Overseas Construction Association’s overseas performance against Plaintiff P Co., Ltd.

The administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition, which prohibits the use of the information in good faith, shall be deemed to be an administrative litigation

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed on the ground that the Food Company P cannot be deemed to have actually been awarded a subcontract for construction work;

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive as the withdrawal of an appeal on May 2, 2012, even though the Plaintiff appealed. E, F, and shares

2010-Guhap430999 Overseas construction records filed by the company without a comprehensive construction company against the Korea Overseas Construction Association

In the case of revocation of disposition to suspend use, the fact-finding is found in the same purport of November 3, 201.

3) Statement of Opinion No. 212 of the Evidence List (Evidence No. 57 Book 8,314 pages 1,315 pages 1,315 of the Evidence Record)

4) The credit rating shall be classified into Category A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and R, and shall be the highest class (A grade) in the order of priority.

The lowest grade)

5) On March 27, 2006, a director of salary class construction corporation operated by Defendant Note 00 was reappointed on March 27, 2006, and retired on March 27, 2009

On the same day, in-house directors were appointed as the same day (Evidence No. 57 book No. 1, No. 29).

6) For Saudi Arabia, a local person of Saudi Arabia is not a local person because it is not a local person but a juridical person.

The president must register as the president. Therefore, overseas enterprisers shall have local people as sponsors, and Generalennaer shall have the local people as sponsors.

under subsection (1) of this section, Genmanal Manger shall be authorized by the Switzerland and shall be authorized by the Corporation and shall be

Along with the construction, substantial part of the construction revenue is brought about.

7) Evidence list Nos. 80 Investigation Report (Attachment of a copy of the invoice of case) No. 57 3, 942 - 9444 of evidence records

Evidence List Nos. 298 Jeju 00

8) Subwon Construction Co., Ltd. shall perform civil engineering works on October 26, 2009 for the implementation of a bid by the Korea Rural Community Corporation on October 26, 2009

From the "g" to E, the second lowest bidder was the first lowest bidder, and November 3, 2009, the question was raised in the performance of overseas works of E on November 3, 2009

The South Local Police Agency filed a petition (Evidence Nos. 2).

9) Of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, the scope of the sentencing guidelines for the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means is limited to one year and three years.

It is a year (the second category, the aggravated area of obstruction of performance of official duties). If multiple crimes are aggravated in relation to each fraudulent scheme, it shall be limited to the aggravated area:

The scope of the recommended sentence shall be one year and six months of imprisonment (=three years + 1/2 x three years + 1/3 x 3 years): Provided, That the sentencing guidelines shall be set up.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means and the crime of interference with business and the crime of giving property in breach of trust without sentencing guidelines.

Since the former concurrent crimes are in the relationship, the lower limit is the range of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means.

the lowest limit shall apply.

10) 1. Defendant tea 00, 00

- The scope of the sentencing guidelines for the crime of obstruction of the performance of justice by fraudulent means among the crimes of this case shall be 1 year and 3 years of imprisonment (public duty).

It is the second category and the aggravated area of interference with enforcement. If multiple crimes are aggravated in relation to the obstruction of performance of justice by fraudulent means, recommendations shall be made.

The scope of sentence is from 1 year to 4 years, and 6 months (=3 years + 1/2 x 3 years). Provided, That each deceptive scheme, for which the sentencing criteria are set, shall be set.

The crime of interference with non-execution and each crime of interference with business for which no sentencing guidelines are set is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Therefore, the lower limit is based on the lower limit of the sentencing range of recommendations for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, for which the sentencing criteria are set.

2. Defendant Kim*

- The scope of the sentencing guidelines for the crime of obstruction of the performance of justice by fraudulent means among the crimes of this case shall be 1 year and 3 years of imprisonment (public duty).

It is the second category and the aggravated area of obstruction of execution.The crime of obstruction of execution of deceptive scheme whose sentencing criteria are set and the sentencing criteria have not been set.

Since each crime of interference with business without any crime of interference is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit of

It shall be subject to the lower limit of the balancing range of recommendations for the obstruction of performance of justice.

3. 피고인 김@@

- 이 사건 범행 중 위계공무집행방해죄에 대한 양형기준상 권고형량의 범위는 징역 1년 | 3년(공무

It is the second category and the aggravated area of obstruction of execution.The crime of obstruction of execution of deceptive scheme whose sentencing criteria are set and the sentencing criteria have not been set.

Since the crime of interference with business not committed is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the lower limit is set in the sentencing

The lower limit of the range of balancing of recommendations for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.