[1] In a case where a partner pretends to be the same as a competitive bidding while conducting a single bidding as a means to prevent an unbruptive competition, whether the crime of interference with the bidding is established (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the defendants who participated in the bidding of the special unit price contract for power distribution project and the special unit price contract ordered by the Korea Electric Power Corporation branch conspired to act as competitive bidding, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the above collusion constitutes a crime of interference with bidding since it harms legitimate and fair competition methods and interferes with reasonable price formation

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do2646 delivered on March 8, 198 (Gong1988, 725) Supreme Court Decision 94Do600 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1867) Supreme Court Decision 94Do2142 delivered on November 8, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3316)

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Attorney Yellow Dok-dok

Busan District Court Decision 99No404 delivered on September 16, 1999

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the obstruction of bidding by the Defendants

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to interference with bidding among the facts charged in this case against the defendants, the court below dismissed the defendants and the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's act of participating in the bidding of the special unit price contract of 98 power distribution projects in the same five areas that the order was given by the branch office of Busan Korea Electric Power Corporation, and calculated the average price again by dividing the 10 preliminary prices publicly announced in advance by 3, counting from the total of 10 preliminary prices, 3 preliminary prices, and then setting 90% of the average price as the base price for bidding on the day of the bidding as the successful bidder's price, and setting 50 million won or less as the most adjacent price for the bid at the same time and 30 billion won as the successful bidder's price for the first two years. Thus, the defendants and the non-indicted 1's act of causing interference with the fair bid price at the highest price or 1's highest price for the bid price, and thus, the defendants were found to have been awarded the bid price at the highest price.

The crime of interference with tendering does not require that the outcome of the act is actually revealed as a dangerous crime, and the act includes not only the act of determining the price but also the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method. Thus, even if such act is merely a means to prevent an influenite competition among the members of the company, and thus it does not harm the interests of the bidder in the bidding price or make the bidder gain unjust profits from the bidder, if the act is the same as that of the competitive bidding while conducting a single bidding, it would have undermined the method of competitive bidding in that it would cause the successful bidder to win the bid (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2142 delivered on November 8, 194).

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing due to violation of the rules of evidence.

2. As to the evidence of breach of trust against Defendant 2

Defendant 2 filed an appeal on this part, but did not submit any grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)