2018Gohap45, 85 (Joints)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(Partially Recognized Crime: Occupational Breach of Trust)

(b) Bidding interference;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(Partially Recognized Crime: Occupational Embezzlement)

1. A. B.

2.(a)(c) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.(a)(b) D

5. (a)(b) E.

6.(a)F

Kim Young-acquisition (prosecution), spherenasium, Han Han-il, Shin Jong-il, Go-Jak, Go-Jak, abnormal reinstatement (trial)

For Defendant A, C, and E

Law Firm KEL, Attorney finalway, red rupture

For Defendant B:

Law Firm LLC (LLC), Attorneys Kim Yong-hoon, Lee Dong-hee

○ For Defendant D and F

Law Firm Jeong-woo, Attorney Kim U-American, Attorney Kim Jin-jin, and Naun-ray

June 29, 2018

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and three years’ imprisonment with prison labor of Defendant B, Defendant C, D, E, and F shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

However, for two years to Defendant A, the execution of each of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year for Defendant C, D, E, and F.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants A, B, C, and E’s bid interference with each of the construction sites of G ordering H, Itel site, J apartment site, Ulsan apartment site, Daejeon L apartment site, Daejeon apartment site, Mokyy Office site, Moky Office site among the sites listed in the attached Table 1 attached Table 1 of the Defendant A, B, and D, ② interference with each of the construction sites related to N Co., Ltd. among the construction sites listed in the attached Table 1 of the Defendant A, B, and D, ③ interference with each of the construction sites related to N Co., Ltd. among the construction sites listed in the attached Table 1 of the Defendant F’s attached Table 1, ③ interference with each of the bidding sites related to N Co., Ltd., Ltd., P, Q, ④ interference with each of the construction sites related to the Daegu RR apartment site listed in the attached Table 2 of the

Criminal 1)

【Status】

Defendant A was employed by the Construction Division around 1990, while serving as the head of the external purchase system from around December 2009 to around March 2014 while serving as the head of the external purchase team. From January 2017, Defendant A was an executive in charge of product development teams. Defendant C was employed as the head of the product development team (design Team), from around 198 to March 2014, and from around 2014, Defendant D was employed as the head of the external main system from around 2008 to around March 2014. Defendant D was employed as the head of the external purchase team, from around 2007 to around 200, and was employed as the head of the external main purchase team, and Defendant E was employed as the head of the external main purchase team from around 2007 to around 200, and Defendant C was employed as the head of the external main purchase team from around 200 to March 24, 201. Defendant C was employed as the head of the external apartment purchase team from around 2000.

[Specific Crime]

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. The G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “G”) in charge of the construction work of the bid interference group consisting of Z and N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'N') and AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'AA' 3). An integrated purchase office consisting of employees, etc. of G and N in U directly for the purchase of necessary materials at the construction site, such as apartment houses, etc.

Defendant A, as a manager of GZ and a manager of the integrated purchase office, manages the overall procedures for the selection of suppliers of materials, such as directly participating in and approving the selection of bidders, estimates for opening tenders, decision-making of suppliers, etc., and Defendant C and D are responsible for the overall process of bidding as the head of the external purchase team of G and N, respectively. Defendant E and F are in charge of bidding-related practice as the deputy head or director of the external purchase team of G and N, respectively. Defendant B operated Y(hereinafter referred to as “YY”) and participated in the bidding of suppliers of materials conducted by G and N.

The Defendants conspired to be awarded a successful bid in the bidding for the selection of G and N T, lighting, and home network suppliers, as well as in the bidding for the selection of so-called so-called "satur enterprise participating in the bidding formally," such as informing the suppliers of the price eligible for the successful bid.

1) Crimes related to tendering on the other day (Defendant A, B, C, and E)

On March 2015, the Defendants decided that the Defendants would select a supplier at the site of AD building from the designated competitive bidding (sponsed bid method) such as the designation of a supplier at the site of AD building in attached Form 1, which was ordered by G around March 2015.

Accordingly, Defendant E notified the participation in the bidding to AE, AF, AG, AH, etc., and Defendant B prepared and submitted a quotation at a price lower than the amount of the AE’s estimate known by Defendant E when the promise was reached and bid at the lowest price. Defendant A and C knowingly known it, as if Defendant A and C were to be the lowest bid price through a normal procedure, designated Defendant A and C as a supplier by carrying out the relevant documents and approving the supply company’s selection letter.

In the end, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the bidding for the selection of suppliers of daily goods at the site of G AD building by deceptive means.

2) Crimes related to lighting tendering (Defendant A, B, D, F)

around October 2015, the Defendants decided to award Y as a supplier, such as the above public bid in the designated competitive bidding (sponsed bid method), such as the designation of the Incheon AI apartment, the Ulsan AJ apartment site lighting supplier, as shown in the attached Table 2 attached hereto, which was ordered by N.

Accordingly, Defendant F notified Defendant F of the participation in the bidding to AK (hereinafter referred to as “AK”) that it is easy to collusion with Defendant B, and Defendant B conspired with the price at a higher price by notifying the representative of AK of the price to participate in the bidding. Defendant A, D, and F knowingly knew of the above price collusion with the above price collusion, and Defendant A, D, and F selected Y as a supplier by carrying out the relevant documents and approving it in the letter of goods selected by the supplier as if Y was awarded the lowest price through a normal procedure with the knowledge of the above price collusion.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired and interfered with N's bidding to select lighting material suppliers by deceptive means, such as the Incheon AI apartment and Ulsan AJ apartment site-related contents, among the attached Form 2, around October 2015.

3) Crimes related to tendering on the home network system (the defendants)

From March 2015 to September 2017, the Defendants decided to award Y as a supplier, such as the above public offering, in each field home network system supplier as shown in the attached Table 3 attached hereto, from March 2015 to September 2017.

Accordingly, Defendant E and F notified each of the above bids that they will participate in the bidding of AL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AL”) and AL agents which are easy to be in collusion with Defendant B, and Defendant B, who notified the AL of the price for the bidding of Y, had AM, which is the agency of AL and AL, prepare each quotation at a higher price, and conspired with the price. Defendant A, C, D, E, and F knew of the above price collusion, and designated Y as the supplier by way of arranging the related documents and approving the goods selected by the supplier as if the Y was awarded the lowest price bid through normal procedures.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired with each other from March 2015 to September 2017, and thereby interfered with tenders for the selection of suppliers of G and N home network system materials by fraudulent means, such as the attached Table 3.

4) On September 2015, Defendant B broadcasted this case’s related contents in AOP around September 2015. On November 2015, Defendant B demanded Defendant A to supply materials that he submitted to the pre-existing site designated as finishing materials. Defendant A accepted the said request and sent them to Defendant C, D, E, and F [Attachment Table 4, 5, 6] as described in G, A, and N (hereinafter referred to as “G, etc. where the three companies need not specify the items,” and integrated tendering procedures can be conducted, regardless of the estimated amount submitted by the participating companies, Defendant A determined Y as a successful bidder and ordered Defendant A to revise the estimated amount and supply them to Defendant C, D, E, and F (hereinafter referred to as “P, etc.”), and Defendant A supplied them to Defendant C, E, E, and C, E, 1, 3, and 1,3, and 5.

Accordingly, Defendant B already submitted a written estimate on January 201 for each site, around January 2016 for the first integrated bid, around May 2016 for the second integrated tender, and around November 2016 for the third integrated tender, but in some of the site, Defendant B’s estimate was determined as a successful bidder or as a successful bidder, such as that the estimate exceeds G and N’s implementation budget or is at the higher price than that of other companies participating in the tender.

In order to adjust the successful bidder's successful bidder in each field Y, the Defendants directly agreed on the successful bidder price by using e-mail the data related to the successful bidder price, and they decided the successful bidder price by determining the successful bidder price at a higher price than the estimated price submitted by Y with a view to compensating for the damage to the successful bidder's price, etc. In addition, even if each quotation was re-established and submitted at the price determined by Y as above on the date of each contract mentioned in attached Table 4, 5, 6, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F, as if Y was awarded as the lowest successful bidder through a normal competitive bidding procedure, Y was selected as the supplier by arranging the relevant documents and approving the goods selected by the supplier.

Ultimately, from April 2016 to April 2017, the Defendants conspired and interfered with tenders for the selection of suppliers of the Home Network System materials by deceptive means, such as the attached Table 4, 5, and 6, from April 2016 to April 2017.

B. Occupational breach of trust and N are responsible for the purchase of finished materials required at the construction site in the product development team, estimated budget team, and external housing purchase team. G acquires N around 2008 and has the construction sector of two companies under U from around 2012, U Mayor or Z concurrently held the office of N’s representative director and managed the external housing purchase team under the U head’s direct control.

As a person in charge of the integrated purchase office, Defendant A is in charge of the overall management and approval of the purchase of necessary materials at G and N construction sites. Defendants C and D are in charge of the affairs to be reported to Defendant A after receiving a report from the working-level officer on the overall purchase of materials from G and N as the external purchase team leader of G and after determining the overall purchase of materials. Defendant E and F are in charge of the affairs related to the purchase of materials as the deputy head or director of G and N respectively.

Defendant B’s Y4 Co., Ltd.) is a company that depends on the delivery of the G and N network system with 96% of its sales.

On the other hand, when the external purchase team of G and N purchases the lighting Home Network System, which is finished by the external purchase team of G and K, through a competitive tendering, the person in charge of the product development team shall select optimal materials in consideration of various design, quality, and budget, and the person in charge of the estimated budget team shall set the budget necessary for the purchase of the materials within an appropriate scope in consideration of market price, performance cost, price fluctuation, etc., and the person in charge of the external purchase team shall be the person in charge of the external tendering team shall be able to participate in the tendering procedure fairly by having the supplier participate in the tendering procedure, and the person in charge of the external purchasing team shall be able to maximize the interests of G and N by purchasing the materials at the lowest price and by selecting the supplier as the supplier, except in extenuating circumstances. The defendants are aware that there are these duties to the person in charge of the material purchase business of G and N.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 B은 G 및 N의 자재 구매 업무 담당 임직원들에게 T그룹 회장 AQ과의 친분관계를 과시하며 자신의 요구를 들어주지 않을 경우 회사 내 불이익이 있을 것 같은 태도를 보여 거절하지 못하게 하고, 담당 임원이나 팀장들로 하여금 상품개발팀, 견적 예산팀, 외주구매팀 업무 담당자들에게 피고인 B의 요구를 들어주라는 취지로 지시하게 하기도 하였으며, 특히 2015. 9.경 AO 시사 프로그램 'AP'에서 AQ과 자신의 관계에 대해 의혹을 제기하는 내용이 방송되어 피고인 A이 Y과 거래를 단절하려 하였음에도, 계속 납품할 수 있게 해달라고 요구하여 피고인 A으로 하여금 피고인 C, D, E, F에게 Y을 낙찰시키되 다수의 현장을 시기별로 묶어 통합 입찰하여 낙찰금액을 일정 수준으로 조정하도록 지시도록 하였다. 피고인 A, C, D, E, F은 피고인 B의 위와 같은 요구에 따라 통합입찰절차를 통하여 홈네트워크 시스템 자재를 구매함에 있어 G 및 N의 이익에 부합하는 방법을 배제한 채 Y 등을 납품업체로 미리 정하고, 납품업체 선정을 위한 입찰에 있어 위 가. 의4)항 기재와 같이 Y을 낙찰자로 정한 후 입찰 절차와 결과를 꿰맞추거나 낙찰금액을 협의하여 결정하는 등 Y이 실질적 경쟁 없이 자신의 이익에 부합하게 홈네트워크시스템을 납품할 수 있도록 하였다.

As such, Defendant A, C, D, and F violated the occupational duty that should maximize company interests in dealing with the affairs related to N's purchase of materials, and thereby purchasing home network system materials without substantial competition from Y. Defendant B, despite being aware of the violation of the material purchase business regulations and the violation of the interests of G and N, demanded Defendant A, etc. to select Defendant A, etc. as the supplier with knowledge that granting the status of an exclusive supplier of materials in Y is in violation of the material purchase business regulations and that granting the status of an exclusive supplier of materials in Y is contrary to the interests of G and N, thereby causing property damage in each amount.

Ultimately, from January 2016 to October 2017, the Defendants conspired to have Y gain pecuniary advantage from the amount, and caused the victim G (Defendant A, B, C, E), N (Defendant A, B, D, and F) to suffer pecuniary loss from each amount.

2. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct

A. The Defendant B violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is a person in charge of the management and enforcement of the company’s funds while running the victim corporation W from October 200 to April 2010. Defendant B purchased 32,570,000 won from AF on or around February 28, 2007, although there was no purchase of lives, etc. from AF around February 20, 2008; Defendant B purchased 32,570,000 won from the name of 32,570,00 won from the name of the 32,570,00 won from the account in the name of AF to the account of AF’s name; and then returned the above amount in cash from AF representative AF to consume it for the purpose of living expenses; Defendant B was a person in charge of the management and enforcement of the company’s funds; Defendant B purchased lives from AF around February 20, 2008 to hereinafter referred to AF 14.

Defendant B managed the Victim Company Y from January 2010 to June 2017, and took overall charge of the management and enforcement of the company’s funds. From January 29, 2010, Defendant B listed AX who did not actually work in the Victim Company Y, as an employee, and deposited KRW 5,508,776 in the name of pay, and voluntarily consumed it from that time to May 2015, Defendant B embezzled KRW 19,171,403, total amount of funds owned by the Victim Company Y, which was in his/her occupational custody, as shown in Appendix 2, from that time. The summary of evidence was the summary of evidence.

[Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act at the Time of Sales]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, AY, BA, BA, BB, BC, BE, BF, BG, BH, BJ, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BN, BP, BP, and QR respectively;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on E, BS, BU, BV, BW, BY, BY, Z, and CA; 1. CB,CC, CD, CE, CF, and CG preparation;

1) GUAD 8 4,027 pages), G 1 5 BY 1, G 1 8,03, 6G 1, 6G 5, 6G 1, 75, 6G 1, 75, 6G 1, 65, 6, 7, 5, 7, 5, 1, 66, 7, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 6, 1, 5, 5, 6, 1, 5, 6, 1, 5, 6, 1, 5, 6, 1, 5, 6, 1, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 7, 5, 5, 6, 1, 7, 4, and 5, 5, 6, and 5, 6, and 5, 1,3, and 5, and 6, 1,3, and

[Article 2 of the Criminal Act at the Time of Sales]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness CH, each legal statement of CI;

1. Each legal statement of the witness AV and BN;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning the CA and CJ;

1. Each investigation report [W,Y's sales, purchase status (as 3:06 of investigation records), W,Y's false purchase status (as 4:1,525 of investigation records), W,Y, CK-related workplace entrance status (as 4:1,716 of investigation records), review of B's embezzlement of corporate funds and creation of non-financial funds (as 5:2,265 of investigation records), results of the execution of warrant of search and seizure applying the financial account trend (as 5:2,406 of investigation records), attachment report (as 6:3,092 of investigation records), attachment report (as 6:3,092 of investigation records), submission of data (as 7:680 of investigation records), and submission of report (as 7:680 of investigation records), BNW (as 9:54 of investigation records), and false statement of accounts to 9:5 of investigation records and false statement of accounts;

1. (State Copy of Written Copy of Corporate Registration, and Y0 Copy of Corporate Registration;

1. Extractions of virtual gold (208 to 2009), W-AK-related account transactions, extracted amount of provisional payments (2010), W 208 to 2010, W 2008 to 2010, AKK 2008 to 2010, AK KK 2008 to 2010, the Director General of the Customer (W), the Director of the 2008 to 2010 (W), W-AK 200 (9 to 4,788), the details of accounting and the details of account tracking (9 to 4,793) between W-AK, the details of account transactions in AB bank account transactions in 2010 to CL (9 to 4,793) and the details of account tracking, including investigation records, the details of the Act and subordinate statutes applicable;

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

A. Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Code of Defendant A, and Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Code (a comprehensive application of each category of occupational breach of trust, each category of damage company), respectively.

B. Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act of Defendant B, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act of each of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Articles 356, 35(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 201); Articles 35(1)2 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Articles 356 and 355(1) (i) of the Criminal Act of the same Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

C. Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Code of C, D, E, and F, Articles 315 and 30 of each Criminal Code (the interference with bidding, each choice of imprisonment), Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of each Criminal Code (the occupational breach of trust, Defendant C and E against the victim G, Defendant D and F, each of which covers each damaged company with respect to the victim N, respectively)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment on the Crimes of Occupational Breach of Trust against Victims N with the largest punishment and punishment against Defendant A; the punishment against Defendant B, which is prescribed in the Crimes of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with the largest punishment, shall be aggravated for each punishment prescribed in the Crimes of Occupational Breach of Trust with the largest punishment against Defendant C, D, E, and F]

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A, C.D, E, and F);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the Issues

1. Issues regarding the Defendants’ interference with bidding

(a) Whether there exists a tender subject to the prior tendering prior to the implementation of an integrated tendering procedure, the summary of the assertion by Defendant A, C, D, F, E, or defense counsel

A) Since there is no mandatory provision that the tender is to be conducted under the GZ and N internal regulations with respect to the finished products in the sample house, the Defendants of G (hereinafter “Defendant A, C, D, F, E, and hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants of G”) in charge of the purchase-related affairs have selected the company having a spectrum in the sample house as the supplier, and entered into a supply contract after negotiations. The G side does not mean that each of the instant charges related to the instant charges was subject to the tender conditions, methods, and the criteria for selecting the successful bidder, etc., on the ground that the submission of the quotation was demanded by each of the submission companies of the quotations related to the instant charges, and thus, it cannot be said that there was no notification of the bid conditions, methods, and criteria for selecting the successful bidder.

B) In substance, with respect to the indicted part of the instant case, G Defendants conducted only a formal bidding procedure to provide evidence that the Defendants had already undergone a tendering procedure under the condition that they decided to conclude a supply contract with Y in accordance with a spectrum procedure. As such, there is no bid subject to interference with bidding.

C) The instant bid constitutes a process of concluding a contract upon the voluntary choice of a public and private economic entity, and thus, it cannot be established as a interference with bidding.

2) Summary of Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

A) G, etc., in substance, have concluded a negotiated contract after determining to conclude a supply contract with Y according to the procedure of finishing the finishes of a model house.

B) Inasmuch as the bidders indicated as being the object of interfering with the facts charged did not implement the procedures that can be deemed as a substantial bid for the evidence that they underwent the tendering procedure, and only prepare a formal bidding document and manipulates it as if there were bids, it cannot be deemed that there exists a "tender that is the object of interference with the tender under Article 315 of the Criminal Act."

3) Relevant legal principles and criteria for determination

A) The term “tender” means entering into a contract with multiple participants in the competition as the other party by having them indicate the content of the contract in writing. It refers to the method of entering into a contract with the applicant in order to allow the competition by means of the estimated price in the case of an auction among the protected objects under Article 315 of the Criminal Act. In the case of an auction, there is an opportunity for competitors to know the price indicated by the other party, while in the case of an auction, there is an important difference in that the competitors expressed their intent in writing, and thus, they did not know the content (i.e.,, the maximum price or the lowest price).

B) In addition, interference with tendering is an offense established when the fairness of tendering is harmed. The fairness of tendering includes the reliance on the formation of a fair competition price on the side of the tendering executor, the fair competition of the tendering participant, and the reliance on the guarantee of the opportunity to conclude contracts accordingly.

C) In fact, it cannot be deemed that an act of manipulating as if a bidder had conducted a bidding without entirely implementing a bidding procedure for proving that a negotiated contract had been completed, without entering into a bidding, constitutes an act of interference with bidding under Article 315 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do4700, Feb. 9, 2001; 2004Do5731, Mar. 25, 2005). However, if a representative of a corporation which is an implementer of a selective competitive tendering procedure is in collusion with a specific person to be selected as a successful bidder and the specific person is informed of the estimated price so that the specific person can be selected as a successful bidder, and the specific person complies with the bidding in collusion with the remaining bidders, it constitutes interference with bidding by evaluating that the process of bidding implemented by the contractor would compromise the process of bidding without the execution of the bidding, and it does not constitute an act of interference with bidding only when the bidder conducted a bid pursuant to the legal obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do586, May 206).

Whether there is a bid should be determined on the basis of whether there is a provision on the tender of the tender executor, whether the tender executor notifies the tender participant of the tender under the provision, the form and content of the notice of the tender, whether the tender participant delivers the tender document to the tender executor with the tender intent, and the business practice, and protect the trust of the tender participant in the tender procedure. In other words, it should not be easily recognized as a procedure for ascertaining the reference price for the tender participant who has received the notice of the tender from the tender executor and submitted the estimate to participate in the tender.

4) Determination

A) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is sufficiently recognized that the bid was conducted in the attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] and the part on AD building in the attached Table 2 [Attachment 2 and 3] (excluding Table 2] and the field (excluding Table 2] in the attached Table 2 [Attachment 2].

(1) The relevant persons of the business entities that submitted a written estimate to G are given notice to participate in the tender from G, and accordingly present the written estimate to G, etc. as follows.

(A) First, with respect to the part on the AD building site in the [Attachment 1], AV testified to the effect that, from this Court, AV directly participated in the tender, 'AD case from this Court on March 2, 2015, the remainder was submitted to G by receiving a unit price from WWCH, etc. (No. AV record No. 10 pages), BE was given notice from the G side of this Court to participate in the tender on the AD building site in the AE name. (No. BE record No. 4 pages).

(B) Of [Attachment 2], with respect to the apartment apartment of YY and Ulsan AJ apartment of YY, the CNN representative BT, who participated in the Man-related bidding, was notified at the investigative agency of 'CN' to participate in the bidding by facsimile around October 2015, 'AK' through the collaborative company, etc., and participated in the bidding after obtaining an estimate from AK, and Y, 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'AN', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y', 'Y'Y'.

(C) [Attachment 3] In relation to the field, AY’s operating division of AL, which participated in the Home Network Industry and Home Network-Related Tender supplied by Y, stated to the effect that “AY was informed at the investigative agency of the contact to participate in the bidding of AL on B” (Article 8:4,21 of the Investigation Record). “AM, N, and CO,” in this court, shall be notified of the tender, and “AL agents, such as NAM, N, and CO, shall be sent to the AL head office” (Article AY recording of the witness). In light of these statements, it appears that G sent the notice of participation in the tender individually in relation to the home network prior to the implementation of the integrated tender (Article AY42 of the Record).

(2) The external purchase team of G was notified of the actual bid by sending the official text of the title, "case of the (tender) request," by facsimile or e-mail, to the collaborative company, etc. (Article 214 No. 36-2 of the trial record, etc.). N's external purchase team notified the actual bid by sending e-mail to the collaborative company (Article 563-568 of the trial record, etc.). Each such notice includes the terms and time of payment and delivery of each company.

(3) According to G's internal rules, ‘the selection process of a material company' includes ① the selection of a participating company for an estimate ? (1) the selection of a participating company for an estimate ? (2) the preparation and submission of an estimate ? (4) the receipt and inspection of a unit price verification (NEGO) - the preparation of a purchase price 62,363 public trial records, 11,879-5,884). However, with regard to the selection of a participating company for an estimate, G appears to include the following: (2) the selection of a participating company for an estimate ; and (3) the selection process of a participating company for an estimate - the submission of an estimate - the preparation and inspection of a unit price verification (NEGO) - the submission of a purchase price verification 62,363 pages, 11,879-5,84 pages) the submission of an estimate - the submission of an estimate 15,581, etc. of a tender report.

(4) The N’s internal rules stipulate that a contract shall be entered into with the receipt of an estimate from more than three registered trading lines (No. 369,370 pages of the trial record), and as seen in the preceding (2), N appears to have undertaken the procedure of receiving such estimate through an ordinary bid.

(5) This part of the field asserted by the Defendants in fact that G constituted a private contract is not reflected in the current status data of G’s private contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 11Nu5897 delivered on investigation records).

(6) In addition, in the bidding process conducted by a private company compared to the tender for the implementation of the public agency, there are many cases where restrictions on qualification for participation are placed in the bidding process by registering the participants in the bidding in the form of "cooperative company meeting the ordinary qualifications," and in such case, it is known that the lowest bidder is successful, barring special circumstances, and in addition, it is known that the lowest bidder is successful, and in relation to the bidding for the building of the instant AD building, a new quotation is required to submit a tender which states a price lower than the AE's estimate. In light of the fact that there is no detailed description on the determination of successful bidder, even if the lowest bidder is selected as a successful bidder, it is difficult to view that each bid initiated does not constitute a tender subject to protection under Article 315 of the Criminal Act because the details on the tender procedure and the determination of successful bidder are not stated in the notice of participation in G and N.

(7) Ultimately, as long as Y and other companies submit the tender documentation in accordance with the tender notification procedure, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is rejected.

(b) Whether there exists a tender that interferes with a tender after an integrated tender is conducted;

1) Summary of the assertion by Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and Defense Counsel

A) It is difficult to deem that there exists a tendering procedure for the same reason as the foregoing paragraph (a).

B) In the case of an integrated bid, the bidding procedure was substantially terminated due to the submission of the estimates, etc. in excess of the implementation budget. Since the Defendants entered into a negotiated contract with Y by negotiating prices, it is difficult to view that there exists a bidding procedure subject to protection under Article 315 of the Criminal Act.

2) Summary of Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s assertion

It is difficult to view that there exists a tendering procedure for the same reason as described in paragraph (2) above.

3) Determination

A) First, in the case of an integrated bid, the bidding notice was given to the bidder, etc. under the title of "assigning (tender) request, including N, in the name of the external purchase team of G, including N, in the name of the bidding team, and the payment terms and timing of each company at the time were specified in the bidding notice (see, e.g., Investigation Record 12:6,641). In addition, in the case of AA, which is a subsidiary of G, the final purchase notice was given the lowest method of selection at the time of the bidding request, stating that "as to the final purchase notice after undergoing the bidding procedure, it was intended to place an order to meet the lowest price company and the execution budget among the bidding participants (see, e.g., Investigation Record 12:6,195-6, 206). In light of these circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the bidding was implemented even in the case of an integrated tender.

B) Furthermore, the tender procedure is completed when there is no successful bidder or successful bidder after the tender executor’s tender notice or notice of tender is commenced. However, in the event that the tender is conducted by limiting the tender participants to a tendering company and no conditions are specified in the tender notice or the tender notice of the tender procedure, the lowest price shall be the successful bidder in light of the nature of the tender and the fairness of the tender procedure, and without permission, the successful bidder shall not be determined pursuant to the internal regulations of the tender executor. Furthermore, even though the tender notice and the tender notice are not indicated in the tender notice, the tender procedure is not completed until the successful bidder is determined. However, if there is a bid exceeding the tender budget, it cannot be deemed that the tender procedure is completed even if the tender price exceeds the tender budget as alleged by the above Defendants, it is determined that there is no successful bidder.

C) In addition, even if it is deemed that the bidding procedure has been completed as the bid price exceeds the implementation budget stipulated in the internal regulations, such as G, even if all the bid price of the bidder was deemed to have been completed, the integrated bid in this case was commenced as seen earlier, and as seen thereafter, in the event that the Defendants’ act in the bidding procedure commenced falls under the act of interfering with the tender, as seen earlier (the ruling No. 25 pages) the tender price of the tender participants exceeded the implementation budget, the obstruction of bidding may be established regardless of whether the Defendants’ act constitutes a obstruction of tender as an act

D) In light of this point, even in the case of the first, second, and third integrated tendering, it is recognized that there was a tendering procedure subject to Article 315 of the Criminal Act, and on a different premise, G Defendants and their defense counsel’s arguments are not accepted. Determination as to whether a tendering obstruction constitutes an act

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of interference with tendering is a dangerous crime established when the fairness of tendering is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or other means, and the act of impairing the fairness of tendering is not necessary. Here, the "act of impairing the fairness of tendering" means the act of causing the situation where it might interfere with fair competition, that is, giving rise to the situation where the fair competition would be likely to be impeded. In other words, the act of causing unfair influence on the adequate price formation through fair competition, which includes not only the determination of prices, but also the act of impairing the "fair and fair competition method" (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8070, May 31, 2007).

A) Summary of Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and Defense Counsel

(1) In the case of AD building in the attached Table 1, AE was a new contractor, so the supply capacity at the time was not verified, and where compensation for delay can be paid due to the sudden progress of the completion schedule at the time, Y verified the supply capacity as a successful bidder and written a written estimate retroactively according to the price negotiation. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the act detrimental to the fairness of the bidding procedure is an act detrimental to the fairness of the bidding procedure

(2) The fact that G entered into a contract with Y constitutes a negotiated contract due to the spectrum system, and AK or AL participated in a bid at a price higher than Y higher than that of an agency protection policy to protect their distribution networks. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the fairness of the tender was impaired.

B) Summary of Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s assertion

Even if there is a bid subject to interference, as long as Y concluded a substantial negotiated contract with G, etc. through price negotiations, it is difficult to view that the bid has been obstructed.

C) Determination

(1) According to the witness BE’s legal statement, etc., in the case of AD building in the attached Table 1, it is recognized that: (a) in the case of AD building in the attached Table 1, the external purchase team employees of G, the bidder, submitted the lowest price to the bidder, and (b) determined Y as the successful bidder regardless of the bid price submitted; (c) notified the bidder of the bid price submitted by AE and received a written estimate submitted retroactively at a price lower than the lowest price. It is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion that the highest price should be determined as the successful bidder and the bid price should be determined as the successful bidder’s price should be determined by internal or internal rules, since it goes against the essence of the bidding procedure where the successful bidder is determined in a transparent manner by price competition, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion that the highest price is determined as the successful bidder’s price is lower than the lowest price.

(2) In the case of lighting (excluding the field of Daegu RR apartment) and the Home Network related to the field in the attached Table 2 and 3, it is sufficiently recognized that the act constitutes a collusion that causes damage to the fairness of the tender, insofar as it is recognized that Y specifically informed Y of the price to be submitted to the bid process conducted by AK and AL and submitted a estimate of price higher than the price to G or N in light of the following statements by the related parties of the companies involved in the collusion.

(A) [Attachment 2] The President BN of AK who participated in the lux tender of the lighting fixtures on the field stated in [Attachment 2] testified to the effect that “Y will be awarded a successful bid at a price higher than that of the estimates submitted by Y to G, etc.” in this Court (No. BN recording of witness BN 18,19 pages).

(B) [Attachment 3] AY’s work at the AL business team participating in the home network bidding of the field described in the table 3 testified to the effect that “AL was notified of bid price by G, etc. and participated in the bidding at a higher price than that by receiving bid price from G, etc., and that “AL was notified of the price to be submitted by AL to agencies in receipt of the notice of bid from G, etc.” (Witness AY record No. 10, 11, 24, 25 pages).

(3) In addition, according to the defendants' claim, Y is a spectrum procedure, 's agency protection policy', where Y becomes a spectrum, the other tendering company is bound to ask Y to the tendering company, and Y is bound to bid more than the price known to Y. Thus, it is difficult to view YK as a manufacturer of the home network and Y is not necessary to ask Y's delivery price as Y (if Y is intended to bid at a higher price than Y for the protection of Y which is an agency, the bid collusion itself can be deemed as interference). As seen above, G et al. notified Y in order to award Y in relation to AD building bidding, it is difficult to find the bid price as 'Y' to be submitted by AE for the bid bid, and subsequent Y in case of G et al., G et al., which is no longer a bid-related tender-related tender-related tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender-related public tender model.

(4) Therefore, it is recognized that criminal facts during the tendering procedure prior to the implementation of an integrated tendering procedure constitute a case where the fairness of tendering is harmed by deceptive means, force, or other means. Therefore, the defendants and their defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.

(iii)in the case of each integrated tender:

A) Summary of Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and Defense Counsel

(1) There was no notice to select the lowest price company in the instant integrated bid sealing site, and the inside regulations of G and N do not require the successful bidder to be selected only on the basis of the price. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the act of undermining the fairness of the tender is merely an act of price negotiations after determining the successful bidder.

(2) In the case of the third integrated bid, since all the bid prices of the other companies participating in the bidding are higher than the initially submitted bid prices, it is difficult to deem that there was an act of interfering with the bidding even if Y submitted a written estimate, the price of which has been changed according to the final pricing negotiation with G, etc., even if there was a bidding procedure.

B) Summary of Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s assertion

As in the case of the transfer of integrated tendering, even if there exists a bid subject to interference, as long as Y concluded a substantial negotiated contract with G, etc. through price negotiations following the procedure of spectrum, it is difficult to deem that there was a result of obstructing the bidding.

C) Determination

(1) Whether it was determined in advance as a successful tenderer

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the integrated tendering procedures conducted in the first, second, and third-lanes are fully recognized to have determined Y as a successful bidder in advance by the G, and that it constitutes a formal bidding procedure. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is not accepted.

(A) As examined in the judgment on occupational breach of trust (the 43th page of the judgment) as follows, the integrated bid of this case 1, 2, and 3 was conducted following Defendant B’s acceptance of Defendant B’s request that Defendant A’s submission of the broadcast of the current news accusation program and Q, etc. around November 2015, the CP filed a complaint with the instant case, etc. around September 2015, and Defendant A’s delivery of Y to the sites where Y had already been in the Spepec in the model house.

(B) With respect to 1, 2, and 3 integrated tendering, Y1 sites and materials were conducted only at the site where Y had been spectrumed. As examined below, G et al. had conducted prior tendering or annual unit tendering for 45 items other than Y's 48 kinds of finishing materials used for sample housing in early 2016, prior tendering or annual unit bidding for Y2. Since Defendant A became the executive director in charge of integrated purchasing office, it was discovered that Y was placed in a bag with several estimates related to different work, or that it was difficult for Y1 to obtain more trust than Y1 in the process of examining the supply unit price after the accusation of the above CP (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 36, 43, Feb. 19, 200).

(D) In the event that Defendant B’s Y participated in a tendering procedure relating to Tyst, lighting, and home network material for a long period of time, most of Y appears to have been awarded a successful bid (see, e.g., witness AY tape, 8 pages, witness BB tape, 44 pages, etc.). In light of the following statements, G and N appears to have been determined as a successful bidder without a long-term price competition by those who participated in G, etc., or participated in the supply of materials, such as (i) the head of G’s product development team selected Y as a successful bidder without a substantial price competition. ① The head of G’s product development team continuously selected Y as a "Tyst, lighting, and home network supplier at an investigative agency, and Y was set with Y as a finished goods supplier, and at the same time, Y was in a convenient aspect for business purposes (see, e.g., the investigation record No. 12 rights6, 316).

YY, W stated to the effect that “G and N should undergo a free contract to supply it to the employees of the business team because it is not a construction company,” and that “L business team AY would have been within the AL even prior to executing a contract with Y because there is almost no change in the investigation record 6:3,328 pages of investigation record).” Even if G-only model is developed, W stated to the effect that “Y would have been supplied through Y even if it would have been supplied (10:5,116 pages of investigation record)” and “BC would have been aware that Y would normally have concluded a free contract with G before the investigation of the instant case begins (10:512,328 pages of investigation record).” Even if the testimony was made by Y, I would have been known to the effect that Y would normally have been installed in B-O and the possibility of the supply of the instant products in B-Otel’s testimony to the effect that Y would have not been made.”

(E) As to the method of performing the work related to the bidding, Defendant E, who was working at the G external purchasing team, stated to the effect that, in relation to the aforementioned work process, Defendant E, who received a sealed estimate from the participating company by telephone, mail, facsimile, and submitting it at any time to the participating company, shall determine the lowest price by opening it at the regular meeting. However, if the lowest price is less than 80% of the implementation budget, the lowest price shall be determined at low price, and if all the companies exceed the implementation amount, the company shall conduct a re-tender, or hold a 1,2, and 3rd price adjustment consultation (the Investigation Record 8:4,012 pages). Notwithstanding the aforementioned work process, the Defendants submitted a estimate for all the estimates in excess of the budget or even submitted a bid price at a lower price than Y’s price (see, e.g., e., see, e., e., e., e., 160-16).

(2) Whether an act constitutes "an act detrimental to the fairness of a tender"

(A) After the submission of the tender documentation in accordance with the integrated bid procedure, the Defendants concluded a contract with Y with Y after determining the minimum unit price and the final supply price in consideration of the implementation budget and each field of work by G, etc., based on the unit price and G, etc. submitted by other companies. The Defendants concluded a contract with Y (see, e.g., Investigation Record 11: 5,724-5,751 and 3: 943-1,381 and 943-1,381, respectively). As seen earlier, the tender executor submitted the tender document by pre-determined the successful bidder and submitted the tender document in advance, and concluded a contract through price negotiations with the successful bidder determined in advance after the tender executor had determined the successful bidder and concluded the contract through price negotiations with the successful bidder determined in advance constitutes a harming the trust of the tender participants that the successful bidder would be determined transparently by legitimate price competition, and harming the fair competition method of the tender procedure and fair competition method).

(B) In G, "standards for the process selection process operation of a supplier" means, in principle, a supplier through the unit price verification work after preparing for estimate, and the following matters shall be considered: (i) the supplier is in charge of the same product; (ii) the minimum price of the product of the same quality; (iii) the contractor whose quality, payment period is clearly favorable; and (iv) the manufacturer who produces environment-friendly products if there are two or more manufacturers of the lowest price estimate, (v) the previous transaction performance and good credit; and (v) the manufacturer of the product of environment-friendly products (in the case of investigation record 11:5,883 pages); and in the case of N, the supplier is in principle the lowest price; (v) the supplier is in charge of the determination of the supplier; and (v) the actual lowest price should be examined in consideration of quality, purchase conditions, credit rating, performance, and designation. In such cases, the purchaser is not required to apply the above provision if it is judged that the lowest price has an adverse effect on the company; and in such case, the purchaser's right to specify the reasons therefor (i).

(C) As above, the internal regulations of G and N preferentially consider the lowest price and, where so, determine the other party to the contract as an enterprise that did not present the lowest price. However, in this case, it is difficult to recognize that G Defendants were determined as a successful tenderer based on the above internal regulations when considering the following: (i) in the first integrated bid, C Q Q presented the price of lighting; and (ii) in other days, CS presented a price lower than Y; and (iii) in the absence of circumstances to deem that G Defendants decided as a successful tenderer after examining the terms and conditions of the transaction, credit rating, or the size of the company; and (ii) in the second integrated bid, some sites are rather subject to a new contract after receiving a estimate at a price higher than the first one submitted by Y.

(3) In the case of the third integrated tendering

(A) In the case of the third integrated bid, it appears that the quotation initially submitted in the bidding process was the lowest level, and the contract is not concluded at a price higher than that of such a unit price.

(B) During the process of the 1, 2, and 3-integrated tendering process, G et al. sent to the partner a written request for participation in tendering, specifying the Spepec as “Y”.

(C) After the first tender, the Defendants on the G were to proceed with Y and price negotiations.

(1) In light of the fact that the Defendants were informed of the estimated price of GY 1 to be supplied through the bid process of GY 1 to the extent that it would have been an integrated bid price agreement with Defendant B on the basis of the current status of 'EY 1 to be produced at the time of application of the annual unit price, estimated price, etc. of the BY 1 to be supplied through the “Z” and that there would have been an integrated bid price agreement with Defendant B. In this regard, Defendant E would have reviewed these various items to lower the estimated price of Y 1 to be produced in the process of the investigation by presenting objective data that 'Y' would have increased the price of Y 1 to be produced at the time of the tender process of the 'Y1 to be supplied at the time of the tender process of the 'Y1 to be produced at the time of the tender process of the 'Y1 to be produced at the time of the tender process of the 'Y2 to be produced at the time of the tender process of the 'Y1 to be produced at the lowest price of the tender price.'

(D) As examined below in relation to the Home Network material, G notified that the Home Network will be supplied with the Home Network in the same way as the previous one before the tender was held (as examined below, 53, 54 pages of the judgment). Accordingly, AL and CO participated in the bidding in collusion with Y and price (as witness AY tape page 27 pages). Moreover, at the time, the Defendants were aware of collusion between Y and AL (as witness No. 36 pages of the judgment below). (e) These circumstances and interference with the bidding do not need to appear in reality as a dangerous crime that harms the fairness of the bidding. It seems that the bidder’s prior determination of the successful bidder may impair fair competition if it goes through a formal tender repeatedly after setting the successful bidder in advance and passing through a formal bid. In light of the fact that the 1 to 3 integrated bidding was conducted as an act of fair competition by giving the successful bidder a prior notice of the successful bidder’s selection in the bidding process, it appears that it would be an unfair competition under the Fair Competition Act.

(d) Whether Defendant A, C, D, E, and F are invited to interfere with the integrated transfer tender.

1) Summary of the above Defendants and their defense counsel's assertion

Even if it is recognized that there was a bid subject to a bid interference, and there was a collusion between the Defendant B and the bidding participants, the Defendants in the G recognizes that the bid of each bid listed in the attached Table [Attachment Table 2 and 3] was continuously successful, based on the relationship between the spectrum system and the manufacture company, etc., and that the bid was continuously successful. However, the Defendants did not participate in the above bid interference act.

2) Relevant legal principles

In the case of co-offenders who act in collusion with two or more persons, a public offering does not require any legal penalty, but is at the time of implied communication with respect to the joint execution of a crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices, and can be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2837, May 5, 2011; 26, etc.).

3) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, G Defendants were found to have participated in bidding interference by finalizing the fact that the Defendants were in collusion with Y’s lighting and the Home Network manufacture, etc., or at least dolusently recognized, even though they were involved in bidding procedures, and thus, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable.

A) As examined in the part of innocence as follows, the Defendants were found not guilty of interference with bidding (the 10th page of the judgment) in relation to the other days of the 10th day of the 19th day of the 200th day of the 78th day of the 78th day of the judgment, and the Defendants submitted a written estimate in which Y was gathered while arranging the documents. Around March 2015, the Y will continue to be conducted in the same manner as before, even after multiple estimates were discovered in one bag, without blocking transaction with Y. The bid in the attached Table 2 and 3 [Attachment 2 and 3] and the 11th day of the 19th day of the Home Network-related tender was concluded after the discovery of several estimates related to the other days in one envelope.

B) From around 2007 to August 201, 201, BR testified to the effect that “AK was known in relation to the titles supplied by G from this court to around 2010, and that it was recognized as an OEM company with respect to Y’s lighting” (the witness BR record 6,8,9 pages), and that the external purchasing team refers to the process of material purchase, and that a considerable number of lighting organizations refer to the documents such as lighting and lighting and lighting that are attached to the bidding notice book, and thus, it seems that G Defendants, who were in charge of the bid notice work, were fully aware that Y is being supplied by AK.

C) Even if a bid is awarded in the tendering procedure notified by G, etc. to the agency of AL, the AL agent of AL appears to have participated in the tendering procedure after receiving a notice of participation in the tendering procedure from G, etc., upon receiving a notice of participation in the tendering procedure from G, etc. (see, e.g., witness AY tape, 10, 42 pages, 10, 5,125 pages), and B’s Y (or Y) were supplied with AL’s home network at the construction site (see, e.g., 11 rights 5,750 pages) from around 208, including two-two apartment houses ordered by G from around 208, and 13 apartment houses ordered by N from around 201 to deliver AL home network at the construction site (see, e.g., the record 11 rights 5, 752 pages).

D) On the other hand, the field where Y participated in the bidding related to G, etc. apartment site, including G, etc., seems not to have been awarded a successful bid for a long time (see, e.g., the witness BB record page 44,45 pages). Even if the model house of a construction company is spectrumed on a model house of a construction company, the case where the other company first registered as the subcontractor does not enter into a supply contract where the supplier does not enter into a supply contract (see, e.g., the witness record page 4, 5, 20 pages). Considering that the number of times when Y entered into a contract for the said product for a long period exceeding 10 years is also equivalent to the number of times when Y entered into a contract for the said product through bidding procedures implemented by G, etc., this is an exceptional case.

E) Ultimately, in full view of the purpose of the tender process conducted by the Defendants in the G, the subject of the notice, the details of the tender notice, and the progress of repeated bid winning, the Defendants appears to have been sufficiently aware that the Defendants were aware that there was a contact between AK and AL on the specific unit price to be submitted by the Y during the tender.12)

2. Issues concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

A. Summary of the defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1) Defendant A, C, D, E, and F

A) Claim concerning breach of duty

(1) Since Y plays an intermediate transaction role in relation to the supply of lighting and home network, Y does not constitute the Defendants’ act of inserting Y which does not have a substantial role in trading with Y.

(2) The Defendants’ conclusion of a supply contract with Y, lighting, and home network is only based on the customary business method in accordance with the spectrum of the establishment process of a model house for apartment sale, and cannot be deemed as an unlawful breach of trust, such as the “scopic cycle.”

B) Claim concerning G’s property damage

(1) As a result of the conclusion of a contract for the supply of materials related to Y and lighting operated by B, it is difficult to deem that property damage was inflicted on G and N solely on the fact that the difference between the supplied price and the price supplied by Y to G, etc. is reasonable.

(2) In general, it is difficult to deem that the intermediate transaction, such as Y, left to a certain extent in the course of distribution, and as such, it cannot be deemed that damage was incurred in connection with the home network.

(3) Even if the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust is acknowledged, since the difference between the purchase amount of Y’s lighting and home network material and the supply amount to G cannot be deemed as G’s damages, it is difficult to deem that the specific amount of damages was proven as much.

C) As to the criminal intent of breach of trust

(1) It is difficult to see that G Defendants engaged in the act of breach of trust for the benefit of B andY, and the Defendants are in charge of external sales without being subject to the limitation on the scope of implementation budget stipulated in the estimated budget team, etc. from the product development team to the materials spectrumd in the sample housing. As such, it is difficult to recognize the intent of breach of trust related to property damage as long as the Defendants frequently conducted a unit price negotiation with Y to carry out the material purchase business within the scope of the implementation budget, and did not exceed Y without exceeding most of the implementation budget.

(2) As for the annual unit price bid of G in 2016, AL, a company manufacturing the home network supplied by Y, submitted an estimate at a price higher than that of the supply to Y or N, the AL AY’s statement cannot be trusted to directly supply to other construction companies at the price of supply to Y. Even if the Y incurred property damage to Y, it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ criminal intent of breach of trust related to property damage as the Defendants did not recognize such difference.

2) Defendant B

A) As alleged earlier by the Defendants in G, as long as it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ crime of occupational breach of trust, which is a principal offender of the crime of occupational breach of trust, the crime of the Defendants involved in the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established.

B) Even if the Defendants’ occupational breach of trust is recognized, the Defendants do not constitute a co-principal offense of occupational breach of trust on the grounds that the Defendant, as the other party to G and the other party, cannot be deemed to have induced or actively participated in the act of occupational breach of trust.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

1) Operation of so-called spectrum system

A) Where a project operator who intends to supply a house under the Housing Act intends to recruit residents, he/she shall produce and submit a list of finishes in which the size, performance, and quality of finish materials used in a model house are written and a video recording inside each room of the model house to the approving authority (Article 54(3) of the Housing Act). In addition, where a project operator intends to build a model house to promote the sale of a house, he/she shall provide information on the list of finishing materials in a model house (Article 54(4) of the Housing Act). In addition, where a project operator intends to build a model house to promote the sale of a house, he/she shall construct and install the same as the contents of the project plan under Article 15 (Article

B) While the Housing Act provisions and the construction of a model house for the above finishes are conducted within an imminent time, there are materials that need to be built in accordance with the location, reputation, and use of the finishes, among the finishes, the design is diverse depending on the use of the finishes, and there are materials that need to be built in accordance with the recent marks change among consumers. The human resources in charge of the construction of a model house is limited in the construction company, and it is difficult for the construction company to select a model house with the entrustment of the construction company or the construction company to directly compare various products within a short time, so it is difficult for the human resources in charge of the construction of a model house to select a model house due to the entrustment of the construction company or the construction company.

C) As above, in the case of spectrum, the relevant finishes is used in the actual construction phase, barring special circumstances, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. As such, G et al. granted such agencies or intermediaries a favorable position in the actual construction phase in the case of assistance in business activities in the agency or intermediary process in the spectrum.

2) Services for each department related to the procedures for purchasing finishes, such as G, etc.

A) G Product Development Team 13) is a department responsible for the selection of finishess to be used in the project, and performs the work of selecting materials most suitable for the project in question. In the case of a housing unit sale project, it is responsible for the selection of specific finishing materials in the process of building a model house and the final construction of them.

B) The estimated budget team of G and N not only calculates the estimated estimate at the construction phase, but also prepares the implementation budget related to materials for construction, including finishes selected by the product development team. The estimated budget team shall determine the implementation budget by taking into account the estimates, performance rates, inflation rate, market situation, etc. submitted by the collaborative companies, including those with a spectrum. The estimated budget team was organized under the ordinary business management of the technology until the beginning of 2015, and was operated under the CA, which is the GZ from the beginning of 2015 (see, e.g., e., e., 6,375 pages, 14, 7, 546-7, 548 pages).

C) At the request of the construction site and the construction team to purchase materials, G and N play a role in purchasing materials selected as finishing materials within the scope of the implementation budget by bidding, etc. in the product development team.

3) Operation of the integrated purchase office of G, etc. and the status and role of Defendant A

A) The facts charged in relation to the duties and duties of G or N on the part of the Defendants of G are as follows.

【Status Status】 The same shall be written.

B) On March 2014, Defendant A was appointed as the head of the integrated purchase office and took overall control of each business of G, N, and AA’s external sales office. A around June 2017, Defendant A took overall control of the sales office of G’s external sales office. From January 2017, Defendant A was organized to take charge of the product development team and overall control of the product development team’s affairs (see, e.g., Investigation Record 12:6,376, 6, 377, 14, 7, 7, 746-7, 548).

4) Method such as bidding by G, etc.

(A) G et al., through a tender that is not a free contract, (1) the individual tender is selected by giving notice of the tender to the collaborative entity upon request for the purchase of individual materials at one construction site;

② In the form of gathering materials related to 4 to 5 sites, the minimum price company was selected by integrated bidding, and 3. The volume to be used in G, etc. for one year has been processed by means of annual unit bidding, etc. (see Investigation Records 11: 5,616 pages).

B) In addition, with respect to the ordinary bidding procedure of a model house, the Defendants in G concluded a contract for the purchase of materials related to YT by conducting an integrated bidding method in relation to the field described in the attached Table [Attachment Table 1, 2, and 3] and entering into a contract for the purchase of materials related to the field listed in the attached Table [Attachment 4, 5, 6] with YT, by conducting an integrated bidding method in relation to the field listed in the attached Table [Attachment 4, 5, and 6], with the prior bidding procedure prior to the construction of a model house and ② the materials to be used at the time of the construction of a model house after the construction site.

5) Progress of supply for G, such as Y operated by Defendant B

A) From around October 2008 to October 2017,Y supplied home network materials, etc. equivalent to KRW 18,811,243,854 to G for about 10 years, 6,91,91, 135,920, 17,147,365,40, and made related sales, such as the supply of finishes totaling KRW 43,122,345,174 (No. 11,5,749 of investigation records).

B) Y from around October 2008 to around October 2017, 2017, N for about KRW 21,400,407,213, 7,238,784,440 equivalent to lighting fixtures, KRW 10,900,312,200, and supply home network materials for about KRW 39,539,50,503,853, and sales related to the supply of finish materials for about KRW 11,751.

C) Y supplied A with lighting fixtures and home networks equivalent to KRW 3,435,140,500 to A on 2016 (investigative Records 5,755 pages).

D) Such sales related to G affiliate were mostly accounts for Y sales.

6) The filing of a broadcast of AO'AP' and an accusation pertaining to this case

A) Around September 2015, broadcast was made on the suspicion that T Group A Q raises a secret fund through the Y operated by Defendant B in the 'AP' complaint program for the current events of AO.

B) On November 2015, the CP, the birth of Q, filed an accusation against T Group A Q, including the instant suspicion.

7G Review of unit price, etc. of the Defendants

A) Around November 2015, Defendant A instructed the external purchase team of G, etc. to look at the Y’s ordering quantity and finishing cost, unit cost, and unit cost comparison with other construction companies, where it became known that the broadcast and accusation as described in the foregoing paragraph (5) was filed (i.e., the investigation record 15 :8,165 pages).

B) From November 2015 to November 2015, Defendant E prepared data to examine the current status of prior bid for input items of a model house and annual unit price, the current status of the unit price for another day, lighting, and home network from around 2010, the supply unit price for other construction companies, the annual order amount and proportion for Y, the number of other construction companies’ different days, and the application of prior bid for, or annual unit price for, the home network (the investigation record No. 11 right 6,066-6,090 pages) (the investigation record No. 15 rights 8,167 pages).

8) Conduct of integrated tendering procedures and conclusion of contracts with G, etc.

A) On December 2015, on the basis of the data gathered as above, G Defendants held a meeting as the presiding agent of Defendant A, a manager in charge of the integrated purchase office, and decided to proceed with the integrated bidding process en bloc at the time of entry into the main quantity of the apartment construction project in 2016 (as to the site where Y is in the spectrum in the existing model house (as to the investigation record 8,168, 168, 168, 8, 280-8, 282). According to such decision, G et al., the integrated bidding procedure was conducted in which G et al. conducted en bloc on the materials to be purchased at a similar time as indicated in attached Table 4, 5, and 6).

B) The G Defendants determined Y as successful bidders in the 1, 2, and 3 integrated tendering procedures. C. Based on comparative data, etc. (i.e., the 11st right 5,724-5,734 pages) with the supply unit price of other construction companies, etc., the Defendants negotiated a supply price agreement with Y and the final supply price, and concluded a contract for the supply of other works, lighting, and home set.

C. Determination as to Defendant A, C, D, E, and F’s assertion

1) Whether to put Y in without a substantial role

Considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that G Defendants engaged in transactions with Y that do not actually play a role on the ground that they conducted transactions with Y that falls under brokerage.

A) In the case of a construction company which establishes a model house for apartment construction and sales in lots, it seems that the company is in the area where the company can make autonomous decision-making by employing individual staff members who select various items, such as others, lighting, etc., and whether the company will be in charge of the relevant work, and whether the company is in charge of the relevant work. In other words, from the standpoint of the company, the decision making externalization of the cost incurred in the process of examining and selecting various products is sufficiently reasonable in terms of reducing the cost of maintenance. In particular, the facts charged in this case state that occupational breach of trust occurred from around 2008. At that time, the amount ordered by G was less than the amount of around 2015 when the issue of this case was raised, and the construction of the model house was made in an irregular manner.

B) Regarding lighting fixtures, Y submitted Y’s lighting proposal and sampling in G et al. before the construction of a model house through BF to the product development team of G et al., Y reflected the matters requested by a man-made business entity that trades with G et al. in the course of the submission of lighting proposal and the construction of a model house in the course of the construction of a model house, and reflected the change when the change occurs at the time of revision or actual delivery. In the event of a problem in the construction site, the construction company and opinion rate were examined and the defect repair were conducted (see, e.g., witness BF record Nos. 3,6-8, 20, 23).

C) In relation to lighting, AK staff BF performed duties related to lighting as described in Paragraph (b) above, including preparing a proposal for lighting under the name of Y (6,7 pages), and if AK staff BF performed duties related to Y in accordance with a contractual relationship with Y and AK, it may be deemed that Y actually performed such duties in relation to G, etc.

D) In relation to the home network material, Y delivered the specifications of the home network material in need of G, etc. to the AL side, or received defects in the construction site, Y sent them to the AL side (No. AY record page 17 pages), and Defendant B frequently visited AL to hear explanations about the function of the home network material in the AL and prepare a place to inform G, etc. (No. DC record page 6 pages).

E) In the event that goods manufactured by a manufacturer are sold through a sales agency, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the intermediate distributors, etc. do not play a substantial role in the sales agency, etc. in this case, even if the goods are supplied and installed or the repair of defects is actually conducted in the final demand source, since the manufacturing company can increase sales through the agency business or reduce business expenses through the agency business, and the final demand source can easily process the defect repair, etc. with the trust with the agency. Therefore, this part of the facts charged is difficult to be recognized. However, we examine below as to whether the crime of occupational breach of trust is established

2) Whether an act constitutes a breach of duty

A) Relevant legal principles

A crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to obtain such pecuniary advantage through an act in violation of one’s duty, thereby causing loss to the principal. Here, “act in violation of one’s duty” includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of law, the content of the contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act that is expected not to perform as a matter of course, in light of specific circumstances such as the content and nature of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do4857, May 14, 2004; 2009Do7435, Jul. 12, 2012

B) Determination

G As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendants’ act of interfering with tendering conducted by G, etc. (the 28th day of the judgment, the 36th day of the judgment), etc. was committed in the course of engaging in the business of purchasing materials by ordinary construction companies, such as inducing the formation of a competitive price, thereby violating their duties to enter into a contract with the company

3) Whether the crime was committed with respect to property damage such as G, etc. and the occurrence of damages

A) Relevant legal principles

Whether an act constitutes an act of breach of trust shall be determined in accordance with the nature of business affairs, specific roles and status of executive officers, and whether such an act deviates from the ordinary scope of business performance in light of the good faith principle. However, even if considering all the above circumstances as to management judgment of executive officers, it shall be determined in light of the specific circumstances under the provisions of statutes, terms of contracts, or the principle of trust and good faith, and as a matter of course, by failing to perform an act expected to have to have or not have to have a third party acquire economic benefits or by having a third party obtain economic benefits, such intent or unlawful acquisition should still be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6075, Nov. 15, 2007). In cases where an act of breach of trust was committed, the determination of whether an act of breach of trust has property damage should be understood as having relation to the property status of the principal, and where an act of breach of trust has not been objectively affected by an act of breach of trust, it shall not be determined that the act of trust would have been objectively affected property damage (see Supreme Court Decision 20708.

B) It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants entered into a Y agreement with the view to the perception that the Defendants suffered property damage to G, etc. in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court prior to the implementation of the integrated bid. In addition, even based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to find that the Defendants had awareness that the above companies suffered property damage.

(1) It is recognized that G Defendants: (a) determined suppliers as successful bidders of the bid process, etc. to determine the supply company in relation to the field in which the Y is spectrum (not more than 28 pages of the judgment, not more than 36 pages), and (b) performed their duties in a manner that considers the convenience of Y, such as conducting bid procedures.

(2) Y was designated as the spectrum of G, lighting, and home network for a long time and repeatedly traded with G, etc. and formed trust without problems in the process of supply and the company. As such, although the Defendants were aware of the collusion arising in the bidding process, they were likely to have been engaged in price negotiations so that they may enter into the execution budget range set out in the estimated budget team based on the unit of performance accumulated in the existing company (see, e.g., Investigation Record 11 rights, 5, 749-5, 752 pages, and witness BB records).

(3) As long as the Defendants concluded most of the supply amount within the scope of the implementation budget through repeated price negotiations as above, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants concluded a contract with Y with the awareness that the implementation budget related to materials supplied by Y was considerably favorable to Y, unless it is acknowledged that the Defendants entered into a continuous contract with Y even though they knew that the implementation budget related to materials supplied by Y was considerably favorable to Y. As seen earlier, G and N’s estimated budget team is divided into an external purchase team or an integrated purchase room where G workers worked (as seen earlier, No. 41 of the judgment) as seen earlier, and the estimated budget team of G, etc. appears to have independently set the implementation budget (see, e.g., witness DD recording, etc.).

(4) In light of the fact that among material purchase business, the portion of others, lighting, and home network among the material purchase business in charge of the G Defendants is not significant in the total purchase price of goods, and that other construction companies’ unit price and Y supplied unit price for the same kind of material are deemed to have been in need of considerable effort in order to identify it as constituting the secrets of each company, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants knew that the unit price for the supply to Y, etc. was considerably high prior to the implementation of the integrated bidding around November 2015, as examined below, prior to the implementation of the price survey for Twit, lighting, and home set work.

C) In the case of lighting parts after the implementation of the integrated bid, it is difficult to readily conclude that G Defendants entered into a Y agreement with the view to recognizing that G and N’s property damage would occur, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court. In addition, even based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to find that the Defendants had awareness of the occurrence of damage to each of the above companies.

(1) In the case of lighting materials in the spectrum at the time of the construction of a model house, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ negotiating power on the G side was considerably lowered, since there was a situation in which AK cannot be supplied with products registered with the Speaker at each site, as long as the materials are indicated in the finishes list as seen earlier in the aforementioned facts.

(2) Since AK appears to have been in a position similar to Y's subcontractor or factory as the quantity of supply to G gradually increases in the course of Y's transactions with Y (see, e.g., witness BF recording page 24), it seems that it was difficult for AK to directly supply lighting to G, etc. without having made direct transactions with G (see, e.g., witness BF recording page 24) and refusing to make a request for supply to G only through Y.

Therefore, the Defendants, as the G, had no choice but to enter into a contract with Y on the field of the spectrum. 15)

(3) Y appears to have produced lighting fixtures that conform to the design that the tegrative company requires through AK. Inasmuch as the number of lighting fixtures is considerably different depending on the design and installation location, the price of lighting fixtures is considerably different for each manufacturer (see, e.g., 18, 19 pages). Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants concluded a contract with Y by negotiating with Y is considerably high.

(4) It is difficult to see that Y was put in without a substantial role, and a significant portion of the Y's business-related Y is included in the unit price to be entered into with G, etc., even if another company entered into a contract.

D) In the case of the Home Network part after the implementation of the integrated tendering

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court in the above facts, it is recognized that the Defendants concluded a contract for the supply of materials at Y and Home Network without taking a procedure to select home network companies through substantial competition while recognizing that property damage occurred to G, etc.

(1) According to the 'the current status of integrated orders' documents (Investigation Record No. 11:5,725) that Defendant E, etc. appears to have been prepared by integrating the unit price investigation results at the end of the end of the end of 2015 and the result of the primary integrated bidding results, the Defendants appears to have known that other construction companies have been supplied the ‘AL Production Home Network Network’ to approximately 64% compared to the implementation budget at the site where the primary integrated bidding was conducted. The home network materials manufactured and supplied to G are modeled, and thus, the reason why there was a substantial difference in the price purchased by G, etc. is not significant. As such, G Defendants, who were aware of the content of the price investigation results, knew that the implementation budget was excessively compiled in favor of Y.

(2) Around that time, the data that examined the method of selecting the home network of other construction companies and concluding contracts (in accordance with investigation records No. 12: 6,089, 6,090) were used, around 2015, about 30 construction companies at the time when the home network was applied to the model house and followed post-tenders. In other words, the Defendants in G knew that the method of purchasing the home network was an exceptional among construction companies following the scambling of the home network materials in the model house at the end of 2015, but Y was able to supply the home network without forming substantial competitive price in the same way as that of the existing construction companies, while recognizing that the home network was used to purchase the home network in the way of undergoing the post-tender at the model house at the end of 2015.

(3) Despite the occurrence of problems related to the fairness of Y and transactions due to the foregoing circumstances and broadcasting and accusation, Y participated in the bidding at the unit price of approximately 113% compared to the total amount of the implementation budget of G and N at the time of the first integrated bidding (No. 11 rights 5,725 pages). However, the Defendants concluded a home network contract at the first integrated bidding site at the unit price of approximately 83.72% compared to the implementation budget, and the Defendants concluded the home network contract at the first integrated bidding site at the unit price of approximately 83.72% compared to the implementation budget. This is considerably higher than the unit price of 64% to 70% compared to the implementation budget of G, etc., in which the G Defendants were identified as being supplied. The G Defendants concluded a contract at the same similar method thereafter.

(4) AL’s statement to the effect that “AY” in an investigative agency was practically known of the entry of the Home Network into AY only through B. GL in 2016, that “AL had already been supplied to the Scpe site and had no choice but to waive the supply of the Pcpe site through B” (the investigation record No. 15 8,087 pages). As to this, “AY had been aware of the annual unit price for the supply of the materials at the Pcpe site and the same price for the tender at the Pcpe site.” As such, GY’s statement to the effect that “AY” did not have to take part in the tender at the Pcpe site and the same annual unit price for the supply of the materials at the Pcpe site (the annual unit price for the tender at the PY 10th and around the PP 2016) and had to take part in the tender at the Pcpe site and had to take part in the tender at a lower level than that of the PL 1.

(5) In light of the content of the materials submitted (see, e.g., Investigation Records 15: 8,118-8,155) that there is no difference between the AY’s unit price supplied to Y and the unit price directly supplied to Y, G, etc. appears to have been able to enter into a supply contract at a price considerably lower than the unit price supplied by Y.

(6) Meanwhile, the witness BR (from August 2007 to August 201), B Q (from August 201 to March 201) testified to the effect that “G has confirmed whether it is possible to directly supply it to G without undergoing Y, and at that time, AL refused direct transaction by allowing it to conduct an agency transaction.” However, the integrated bid of this case was conducted around April 2016, and it was examined before the witness BC’s testimony, which is the representative director of AL, and the Defendants’ refusal to supply it to AL, were newly determined on August 12, 2015, which was the annual unit price contract that was proposed by G et al. to AL, and that the Defendants’ refusal to supply it to the existing 15 sites, etc., and thus, the Defendants’ refusal to directly supply it through the existing AL 15 days prior to its refusal to supply it, and thus, it appears that the Defendants’ direct supply of it was an integrated supply of it to the AL 15 days prior to its refusal to supply.

(7) In addition, in light of the above departments in charge of material supply contracts of G, etc., their affiliation and roles, processing process for selecting suppliers, G, etc., and Y’s material supply contract details, Y in this case is the spectrum of products Y in the product development team for the purpose of executing the product supply contract with G, etc., and the estimated budget team centered on the prices presented by Y in the estimate budget team, and the external purchase team needs to select Y as a successful bidder in the bidding process for material purchase. In the process, the external purchase team needs to select Y as a successful bidder. In addition, the impact of G Defendants on the product development team and the estimated budget team is limited.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendants conspired with Defendant B to select Y as successful bidders in relation to the products they deal with in the field of external purchase. However, it is not recognized that G Defendants need to be specially recruited with Defendant B in connection with the external purchase business. Therefore, only the employees belonging to the external purchase team may not be deemed to have participated in the external purchase business. However, as seen earlier, the Defendants, who belong to the external purchase team, were supplied with G home network in a similar way from around 2008 to 10 years. In light of the fact that Y was supplied with the external purchase team in the way similar to this case, the Defendants, other than the external purchase team, the personnel in charge of the estimated budget team, and those who might have an impact on all of them, selected Y as a supplier and provided Y with non-property profits, and the Defendants were recognized as co-offenders in the process of concluding a contract with the external purchase team, and thus, the Defendants were established as co-offenders and co-offenders in the process of concluding a contract with the external purchase team.

4) Whether damage to G and N was incurred

As examined in the above 3) As long as it is deemed that G et al. could have purchased at a price significantly lower than the price entered into a supply contract for Y and Home Network Materials after the implementation of the integrated bid, the Defendants’ assertion on this is not acceptable.

5) Whether a specific amount of damages has been proven

A) The method and scope of calculating the amount of damages by the prosecutor

Y With respect to the supply of lighting and home network materials from around 2008 to around 2017, the prosecutor shall deduct the amount Y from the sales amount of each on-site material to be supplied to G and N to G from the customer and calculate it as the amount of damages suffered by G, etc., on the premise that the public prosecutor had ‘Y' in the transactional stage without actual roles.

The amount of damages related to each Defendant is specified as shown in the attached Table 7 according to the time the prosecutor participated in the supply of each material. The amount calculated by deducting related purchase costs from the sales amount of Y for each victim company related to the home network materials after the execution of an integrated bid for which the establishment of a crime of occupational breach of trust is recognized according to the criteria for calculating the amount of damages is as follows (see Investigation Record 15: 7,796-7,815).

A person shall be appointed.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it cannot be readily concluded that G was able to enter into a home network supply contract with the same or lower unit price as the supply unit price entered into between Y and AL. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the difference between the supply unit price and the supply amount from YL is all the damage of G without any reasonable doubt.

(1) First of all, the facts charged is calculated on the premise that the Y did not play a substantial role and is in the transaction phase that was put in order to obtain a Y, but as seen earlier, as long as it is difficult to deem that the Y merely puts the Y (in the judgment No. 45 pages) to be put in the middle distribution, the relevant purchase cost cannot be calculated by simply deducting the relevant purchase cost from the sales amount for each damage company.

(2) In light of the fact that the supply rate for AL for the Y appears to have been set by including the expectation that the future Y may take an additional spectrum in G-related fields according to the expectation of continuous business relations with the Y, it is difficult to readily conclude that the bid price offered by AL is equal or lower than the supply price offered by AL for the Y in this case when a fair bid procedure or G et al. enters into a direct free contract with G et al.

6) Sub-determination

Therefore, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, only the establishment of occupational breach of trust regarding home network material purchase contracts concluded after the execution of integrated tendering by the Defendants is recognized.

D. Determination as to Defendant B

1) Relevant legal principles

In a type of breach of trust requiring the existence of an opposite contractual party’s pro rata act, taking into account the fact that the opposite contractual party is basically an independent transaction with an interest separate from the one executing the act of breach of trust, a beneficiary who obtains a benefit from the act of breach of trust cannot be deemed an accomplice of the act of breach of trust. In principle, the beneficiary who obtains a benefit from the act of breach of trust cannot be deemed as a co-principal of the act of breach of trust, in recognition of the fact that the act of an executor of breach of trust constitutes an act of breach of trust against the victim himself/herself, may be deemed as a co-principal of the act of breach of trust only when he/she actively participated in the act of breach of trust by inducing the act of breach of trust or participating in the whole process of breach of trust (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do5630, Sep. 10, 2009; 2010Do7624, Oct. 27, 2011)

2) Determination

As seen earlier, in determining whether the crime of breach of trust against the Defendants was established, the core point of the crime of breach of trust against the Defendants was that the Defendants actively participated in the bidding interference, which is the core element of the act of breach of trust, as well as that of the Defendants, in violation of the occupational duty to protect the interests of the company by conducting a fair bidding in the integrated tendering procedure relating to the Home Network conducted by G, etc., and that Defendant B selected Y as a successful bidder in advance and undergoing a formal tendering procedure. Accordingly, Defendant B and G conspired with the Defendants in order to interfere with the bidding. In other words, the purpose of the bid interference is easily recognized as having actively participated in the bid interference act of this case as an accomplice in the act of interference with the tendering procedure corresponding to the core element of the act of breach of trust, such as the conclusion of the contract of this case and the influence of the contract of this case on the tendering procedure of the Defendants B and B in the process of performing the contract of breach of trust, thereby satisfying the core element of the act of breach of trust.

A) After the broadcast of “AP” and the instant accusation, A received an order from the employees of the Integrated Purchase Office to collect and arrange the order of “Y”, the supply price, and comparative data with the unit price of other companies, and then, it is thought that there is a problem not to be a competition relationship due to the exclusive supply of “Y”. On December 2015, 2015, A tried to terminate B’s future transaction with “Y” (15 rights, 8,024-8, 027 pages) but did not close upon the Defendant’s request, so that the Defendant may continue to supply “Y” through the integrated bid, without any interruption of transaction with “Y” (15 rights, 8,024-8,027 pages).

B) In the process of the first-third integrated bid, the Defendant, while allowing AL to participate in the bid at a price higher than the unit price to be submitted by Y (see, e.g., witness AY recording page 10-12). In the bid process conducted by G, etc., Y was determined as a successful bidder and is proceeding with the first-third integrated bid process, Y was actively involved in the bid interference by informing the other bidders of the estimate price to be submitted by Y or the higher price, or by tending such appearance as the first estimate submitted.

C) In the event that the Defendant simply tried to evour a friendly relationship with Q as part of ordinary business activities in the future, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant’s participation in the tender at a unit price exceeding 110% of the execution budget amount in relation to the home network part of the first integrated tender as shown in the attached Table [Attachment 4] is difficult to easily understand that the Defendant’s participation in the tender (see, e.g., title 11, 5,725 of investigation records) was considerably high compared to the execution budget in the situation where there was such suspicion. In short, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant considered that there was a significant influence on G, etc. on the part of the execution budget.

D) The Defendant was registered as the auditor of the DoE, a G affiliate, and appears to have participated in the management of a considerable number of companies related to G as shareholders or photographs.

E) The ZF, who was employed as the president of G U and N, had been working in the DF, and had worked as the G U and N, recommended N to introduce DF products to NN and apply them to the apartment construction site (Article 16:8,441 of the Investigation Records). The Defendant, at the time, talked with the purport that "DF would be a company that supplies reliable products," and that "DF would have continued to use the AL products supplied by it (Article 16:8,362 of the Investigation Records). Ultimately, DF products could not be primarily spepeced since the site of G, etc. at the site of apartment, and in this connection, BK, who had worked in the NG, had been stated by the investigation agency to the effect that "BZF's home network was changed from the 2013 East apartment Construction Team's home network to the 7th head office at the time of the change to the 7th office of the Defendant's Home Construction Team to the 7th office.

F) While serving as the head of N’s product development team, BG, which was retired around 2012, stated to the effect that “BG,” after N acquired from the investigative agency to this court, directly received a phone call from the BS Standing Director “I am Y, I am Y, I am h, and I am Y.” (Defendant BG record Nos. 19 and 10 am 5,483).

G) CI, who was an employee in charge of the accounts of Y, was asked to other trading companies, etc. for the reason that the Y supplied to G and N, with the reason that the Y made a transaction with the Y. The G representative and the Defendant knew that the Y had a friendly relationship with the Y, and that the Y used an amount of approximately KRW 5 million in one month as a corporate card, and that the Y was used in a personal place rather than in contact with the G personnel. B was written to the effect that there was no contact with the G, and that there was no 8 rights4,280 pages of investigation records).

H) It stated to the effect that “BL, who worked in the Nju Purchase Team, attempted price negotiations with the Defendant from the head of DH division who was in charge of lighting affairs, but attempted to do so, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “it may be fake even if it is impossible to enter the N” from the Defendant.

(1) On August 8, 2010, from August 5, 2010 to August 5, 2011, Qu, which served as the head of the GZ budget team from August 201 to March 201 as the outer home purchase team, had a view that the price negotiations are not well possible in the working group level B, i.e., the Vice-Chairperson B, at the time of the implementation of the budget, and had a view of the reasons for delivery of the Home Network from Y, other than the AL, to the effect that it would be supplied to the Defendant only through the Defendant. In view of the fact that G, 15, to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to change the supply structure under the circumstances that the Defendant knew of the relationship with AL home network, 200 to the effect that Q Q would not have any disadvantage to the Defendant at the time of the implementation of the investigation by the Defendant, even if it is difficult to view that Qu 1 would have any other way to view that Q Q 1 would not have any other way of the cost.

(j) As seen earlier, in light of the general method of business performance of the construction industry around the end of 2015, Y was supplied with a home network product in a way that continues to be a spectrum on an exceptional basis. On July 2015, 2015, the delivery of home network product to the apartment construction site of G, etc. was entirely Y (No. 11 right 6,085-6,087 pages of investigation record).

3. Issues regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by Defendant B

A. Issues related to crimes related to AF

1) Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

A) On March 19, 2009, the Defendant deposited KRW 160,000,00, which falls under the part related to AF-related crime No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'AF-related crime’ in the attached list No. 1 of the crime log No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'AF-related crime’ regardless of whether it was before or after the amendment of DI), from W account to AF representative AV, the Defendant deposited the amount of KRW 160,000,000 in the attached list No. 1 of the crime log No. 1.

B) In relation to Section 3 of the AF-related crime No. 1 of the attached Table 1, the Defendant is keeping the Defendant’s personal data, and the Defendant paid a check to AV to convert it into cash and received it in cash, and thus the crime of embezzlement against W cannot be deemed to be established.

C) With respect to Section 4 of the AF-related crime No. 1 of the attached Table 1, the Defendant withdrawn KRW 11,463,120 on June 3, 2009 from the W account and paid it in cash to AV. The judgment on Section 2 of the attached Table 1 is not related to the tax invoice of KRW 11,389,61 on May 7, 2009, stating that the prosecution is related to the embezzlement of this part of this case.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 160,000,000 that the Defendant withdrawn from the Y account on March 19, 2009 to pay AF for the credit payment.

A) In the W AB bank account on March 19, 2009, the amount of KRW 60 million and KRW 100 million were replaced by each cash withdrawal (transaction type) (transaction contents) (Transaction 2,447 pages, 2,500 pages). According to the W’s “monthly funding” statement between January and March 3, 2009, the amount actually paid to W AF is shown as follows (Investigation Record 63,126-3,131 pages).

A person shall be appointed.

C) In this regard, the AF representative AV stated to the effect that “160 million won was deposited in the W account and deposited in the accounts as the credit purchase amount system with respect to AF on the W’s account book, and that W did not have any transfer from W to AF, and that “it was confirmed that there was no tax invoice issued” (6No. 3175 pages of the investigation record), and that this Court testified to the same effect (3 pages of the AV record).

D) Meanwhile, according to the statement of the ledger of credit account (296 pages of the record of public trial) with respect to AF evidence Nos. 7, it is recognized that the Defendant was in charge of accounting as having received each credit amount of KRW 100 million from W on January 22, 2009, KRW 2315,034, KRW 23309, KRW 309, KRW 1000,000, KRW 1000,000 from W. The balance after transactions with AFD DJ account was KRW 94,28,401, KRW 300,000 from March 24, 2009, KRW 194,258,000, KRW 3000,000 from each of the accounts was 300,000,000,000 won and KRW 300,000,000,000 from AF account books.

E) The above amount of KRW 3,00,000,000 on January 7, 2009 and KRW 253,000,000 on March 3, 2009, indicated as the payment to AF on the above W’s account books, are not reflected in the AF’s account books or accounts, and it appears in the record that the Defendant created a large amount of foreign capital without paying the remainder of KRW 60 million to AF, in light of the fact that it appears in the record that the Defendant frequently raised a large amount of foreign capital due to the method of receiving false tax invoices and paying the reduced amount after receiving the tax invoice with respect to the purchase transaction of W. 21)

F) However, according to the aforementioned details of transactions and accounting books of W and AF as seen earlier, the possibility that the Defendant would have been paid at least KRW 160 million out of W account from March 19, 2009 to AF’s account. As seen earlier, AV states that: (a) the Defendant was at least 100 million won from W account from the investigative agency to this court; (b) the Defendant did not have received the entire amount of KRW 160 million withdrawn from W account from March 19, 2009 to this court; (c) and (d) it is difficult to entirely believe this part of the statement in light of the foregoing facts. (i) Even if the Defendant paid the remainder of KRW 60 million to AV, it cannot be excluded from the possibility that AV could have arbitrarily consumed it without recording it in AF’s account books). Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that there was no evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the Defendant’s embezzlement of KRW 60 million.

3) Determination as to Nos. 3

A) AV deposited KRW 313,00,000,000 on May 12, 2009 into AF account, and then withdrawn it in cash (No. 9,956 pages, 4,957 pages), and the Defendant also recognized the fact that he/she received a check and returned cash to AV.

B) However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s check laundry via AV was W’s funds, and it cannot be recognized that the Defendant embezzled the check.

4) Determination as to Nos. 4

A) On May 7, 2009, AF’s accounting books in 2009, the sales of KRW 148,85,575, ② KRW 11,389,61, ③ 49,342,967, and KRW 148,851,153 on the same day and KRW 100,851,153 on the same day were received from W (Evidence 5) and the amount corresponding to the above Section 2 is identical to the date of the tax invoice that was used as the means of embezzlement in this part of the facts charged.

B) W was actually paid KRW 100 million to AF on May 7, 2009, and KRW 48,851,153, respectively, are indicated in the account transaction details of AF (see, e.g., e., Investigation Record 2,500 pages).

C) In light of the above facts as seen in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, since the amount of payment made on the same day as that of AF’s sales revenue accrued on May 7, 2009 is the same amount, it is reasonable to deem that the issuance of a tax invoice for sales accrued and the payment corresponding thereto was made at the same time. Unlike this, the fact that W’s 11,389,611 won issued on May 7, 2009 constitutes a false tax invoice for the embezzlement of the Defendant constitutes an exceptional case, it is necessary to separately prove that there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

D) In addition, the Y’s account books indicate that the amount of KRW 1,463,120 on June 3, 2009 was paid to AF (as of June 3, 2009, KRW 9:4,902 of investigation records), and CH also stated that the same day was deposited as a payment for AF (as of June 3, 2009: 6:3,136 pages) and that it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the AV’s statement that there is no payment for goods in cash from the Defendant. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the amount without paying the amount on June 3, 2009 to AF account books.

F) Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant voluntarily consumed the tax invoice amounting to KRW 11,463,120 as the payment list of the tax invoice amounting to KRW 11,389,611 on May 7, 2009 between the AF and the AF on June 3, 2009, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. Issues related to AK-related crimes

1) Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

A) In determining the part on the AK-related crime No. 1-11 (hereinafter referred to as “AK-related crime part”), the Defendant paid to B, in cash, an amount equivalent to the sum corresponding to the AK-related crime (the entry to specify the part on the list of crimes corresponding to the AK-related crime is omitted and specified by the sequence).

B) The amount related to the No. 16 is embezzled in the same manner, and in view of the ratio of the amount of tax invoices issued and the embezzlement amount issued in relation to the No. 12-18, which was charged, the amount is deemed not to fall under the discount fee for bills, and the Defendant paid all the amount of the credit amount corresponding to No. 16 to BN in cash.

C) The Defendant paid the amount corresponding to No. 19 to AK president BN in cash.

D) It is difficult to view that CH was prepared by W’s current accounting employee as a processing transaction of “purchase (+purchase)” column 3,099 of the Statement of Settlement (Investigation Record 5:3,099 pages).

2) Determination as to the assertion relating to Nos. 1-11 and 16

A) The details of the W-related transactions shown in the account books between January 2, 2008 and June 2008 of AK, and the amount actually received by AK as an account statement of credit payment from W is as follows (see Investigation Record 5: 2,439, 2,440 pages, 9, 4, 790 pages).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B) The phrase “purchase (+Purchase)” as adjusted by CH in 2008 appears to have been written on the basis of a tax invoice issued in excess of the actual contract amount (see, e.g., witness CH tape page 9), and the funds relating to the tax invoice as stated in such a “purchase (+Purchase)” appears to have been withdrawn as CH paid to the customer and delivered in cash to the Defendant (see, e.g., witness CH tape page 10).

C) CH testified to the effect that the portion corresponding to paragraphs 1-11 and 11 in this court was “the embezzlement of a false tax invoice issued even if there was no actual transaction between W and AK from June 19, 2009 to September 8, 2009 (the 11th page of the witness CH record).” The sum of the embezzled amount of paragraphs 1-11 and 177,323,400 won is added.

D) CH states that “W is issued a false tax invoice from AK, only the amount equivalent to the value-added tax shall be paid in cash, etc., and the remainder shall be withdrawn from the W account, etc., in cash, etc., and paid to AK by calculating the amount to be borne by the corporation tax at least 3-5% (Witness CHC No. 13, 15 pages).

E) Meanwhile, (1) the act of remitting money less than that entered in the account books 16 No. 16 to AK appears on June 18, 2009, which is the day immediately preceding the 1st day before the said date and time; (2) the amount not actually paid, unlike W’s account books from June 18, 2009 to September 8, 2009, which is calculated by adding the aggregate amount described in paragraph 16 to W’s account books, appears to appear to have been 198,937,100 won in total; and (3) in light of the fact that C’s false tax invoice issued from the 2nd of January 2009 to 4, 200, CH appears to have continued to have been issued at the time of the issuance of the false tax invoice and the fact that there seems to have been a considerable number of transfers of money from the date of payment to B’s account books and the fact that C’s false account books had been issued at the time of payment.

F) Therefore, Serial 1-11 is acknowledged as having withdrawn cash under the pretext of repayment corresponding to the false tax invoice, and as having not paid it to AK, Serial 16 is deemed to have been paid more than the actual credit price paid, and as having withdrawn and used the difference in the account book (which seems to include the unpaid amount under the pretext of partial discount of bill) 25), the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn and embezzled the money owned by W, and arranged it as having been paid to AK on the account book of W. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3) Determination on the assertion relating to Nos. 19

A) The funds related to KRW 250,130,000 that were deposited from the W account under the pretext of half of the amount of credit purchase on March 19, 2009 do not appear in the Director of the Customer (Investigation Record 9: 4,791, 4,795 pages).

B) In this regard, BN testified to the effect that “B” in this Court gave her own account of KRW 250,130,000 on March 19, 2009, but it is different from that of “B’s personal loan of KRW 32.” (Witness BN page 32).

C) Therefore, in order to recognize that the Defendant embezzled W’s funds, there is no evidence to acknowledge that BN actually lent money to the Defendant, and it is recognized that the Defendant directly delivered money to AK representative BN. In light of the sales size of AK and W and the Defendant’s financial status, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant embezzled BN, even in light of the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from BN in light of the size of sales and the Defendant’s financial status, etc., it appears that it appears that the Defendant embezzled the money.

D) Furthermore, according to the results of the inquiry into the contents of the deposit and withdrawal transactions bound by the submission of reference materials as of June 22, 2018, which was submitted after the closing of the argument in the instant case, BN deposited KRW 250,130,00 into the account under the name of AK on March 30, 2009, and the Defendant appears to have deposited KRW 250,130,000, which was deposited on March 19, 2009, as it appears that the amount of KRW 250,130,000, which was deposited on March 19, 2009, was paid to AK

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, among the facts charged against Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Embezzlement), the portion of KRW 2,764,54,434 is found guilty, as in the remainder of the crimes related to Section 1 AF of the attached Table 1 AF and Section 19 of the AK-related crimes.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to 15 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) 1,2,3 - Interference with a tender

[Determination of Types] Type 1 (Interference with General Auction and Bidding) interfering with Auction and Bidding

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where a person commits repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

2) Extent of recommendation by aggravating multiple offenses: Imprisonment between 10 months and 3 August 26). Determination of sentence

The Defendant, as a managing director in charge of the integrated purchase office of G construction project sections, conducted unfair bidding procedures, such as denying collusion in the process of purchasing materials at construction sites, thereby causing damage to G, etc.. In light of the Defendant’s criminal intent, status, and company damage, it is difficult to exempt the Defendant from punishment corresponding to the relevant criminal liability.

However, there is a limitation on the influence of the product development team and the estimated budget team in the status of the defendant, and there is no benefit from the property acquired by the crime so it is difficult to see that the defendant led the crime of this case as the first offender, taking into account various circumstances shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances and motive of the crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances before and after the crime, etc.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for a period of three years to twenty-two years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Class I crime - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (not less than KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion)

[Special Aggravation] Reduction element: A substantial one-person company or family company: Where the method of punishment is very poor.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years to 5 years of imprisonment

2) 2 and 3 - Interference with bidding

[Determination of Type 1] Interference with Auction Bidding (Interference with General Auction Bidding)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where a person commits repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

3) Extent of recommendation by aggravating multiple offenses: Imprisonment for two years to six years. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for three years.

The Defendant, while operating a Y, etc. that supplies apartment interior finish materials to G, etc., used a friendly relationship with Ast Q president, and actively participated in bid interference activities, such as collusion with bidding participants, thereby causing losses to G and its affiliate companies, and the amount of such profit seems to be reasonable. Furthermore, the Defendant embezzled large company funds in the manner of inducing the operation of accounting books and the payment of goods or wages in the process of W and Y management. Considering the content and role of the Defendant’s criminal act, the damage to related companies, etc., it is difficult for the Defendant to be exempted from punishment corresponding to the criminal liability.

However, Y and W, the victim of occupational embezzlement, are practically one shareholder of the defendant, and the defendant returned at W the amount of embezzlement and the amount of 3.2 billion won which is more than that of the defendant, and the damage seems to have been substantially recovered, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, as well as the fact that the defendant has no record of crime, in addition to punishment once by fine.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, details and motive of the crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances before and after the crime, and other circumstances shown in the records and pleadings shall be determined as ordered.

3. Defendant C, D, E, and F

A. The scope of applicable sentences under each law and the scope of recommended sentences based on sentencing guidelines shall be as Defendant A.

(b) Determination of sentence: Eight months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence; and

The Defendants, as employees in charge of the external purchase of G and N, continued unfair bidding, such as permitting collusion in the process of purchasing materials at the construction site, and thereby inflicted damage on G and N. In light of the company’s amount of damages, the Defendants’ responsibility is not weak.

However, in light of the status of the Defendants, it appears that it was difficult for the Defendants to refuse the instructions from the upper line. The Defendants’ pecuniary profits earned therefrom are almost nonexistent, and other circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the Defendants’ power, age, character and conduct, environment, details and motive of the crimes, relationship with the victims, circumstances before and after the crimes, etc., shall be determined as ordered.

Parts of innocence

1. The Defendants’ interference with bidding

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Tender relating to the other day (the defendants)

From March 2014 to August 2015, the Defendants decided to award a successful bid for Y, such as the above public offering, from among the sites listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto, from around April 2014 to around August 2015 (the Defendant F is excluded from April 2014 to June 2015) G and N, the designated suppliers at each site other than the AD building site, such as the selection of suppliers at each site other than the AD building site.

Accordingly, Defendant E and Defendant F notified Defendant B of the participation in the bidding of DK, DL, DM, DM, DN, DO, DP, etc., and Defendant B, from the representatives of each of the above companies, prepared a estimate in the name of each company, stating a higher amount than Y's bid price, and submitted a written estimate in the name of each company. Defendant A, C, D, E, and F, who are well aware of the above price collusion, was awarded the lowest price bid in the supply company through a normal procedure, and subsequently selected Y as the supply company by arranging the related documents and approving the goods selected by the supply company.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired from March 2014 to August 2015 (the Defendant F was excluded from April 2014 to June 2015 during the above period) and interfered with tenders for the selection of suppliers of all kinds of G and N by deceptive means, such as the details of the remaining site except for AD building parts among the site in attached Table 1 [Attachment 1].

2) Tender related to lighting (Defendant A, B, C, and E)

around September 2017, the Defendants decided to award Y as a supplier in accordance with the conspiracys written in the judgment of the Defendants, such as the selection of a small-scale RR apartment site supplier listed in the attached Table 2 [Attachment 2] list of crimes ordered by G.

As a result, Defendant E notified Defendant AK (hereinafter referred to as “AK”) that it is easy to negotiate with Defendant B in the above bidding, and Defendant B agreed to the representative of AK to participate in the bid at a higher price, and agreed to bid price, and the other bidding price cannot be awarded by estimating at a higher price than the bid price in lieu of AK. Defendant A, C, and E knowingly knew of the above price collusion as if the minimum price collusion was awarded by the supplier, and then selected Y as the supplier by recommending the related documents and approving the supplier’s selection letter.

In the end, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the bidding for the selection of the G and N's lighting material suppliers by deceptive means.

B. Summary of Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and Defense Counsel

1) The bid related to the other day is merely a document prepared as a result of the tender process, as it did not comply with the notice of the tender, and there was no bid procedure.

2) The tender part related to lighting is subject to urgent needs, separate from tendering procedures, to the construction site.

As a request for the conclusion of a free contract, it cannot be said that the tender is obstructed. The summary of the defendant B and the defense counsel's assertion

The conclusion of a supply contract with G, etc. by the Defendant is merely a mere fact of entering into a negotiated contract due to the fact that the Defendant’s operation of a different supply contract was the spectrum in a model house, and that the procedure that was conducted thereafter was prepared only for the evidence that there was only a formal bidding document to prove that there was a bid, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a “tender subject to protection of interference with tender.”

C. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly selected and examined by this court, it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the tendering procedure related to this part of the facts charged was conducted by G or N, a tendering executor, and that the tendering participant had an intent to participate in the tendering procedure. However, it is difficult to deem that there was a tendering procedure, which serves as the premise for the establishment of the crime of interference with the tendering, merely because the Defendants merely Y and the documents were merely the participants who participated in the tendering procedure.

A) If AF’s AV sent the tender statement to Y in an investigative agency, CH sent the tender statement to Y in its e-mail. After that, Y employee sealed the unit price for the estimate written by Defendant B and sent it to the V external purchase team. G stated that Y’s participation in the tender of the company in the e-mail, which is known to Y’s employee, in the form of Y’s employee, would have received a estimate for the company’s participation in the tender of the Y (No. 8 rights 4,330, 4,331 pages). In this court testimony to the effect that “AD case as of March 2, 2015 was directly participating in the tender, but the remainder was submitted to Y upon request from CH, etc. of W, and submitted the unit price to Y” (see, e-written evidence AV recording 10 pages).

B) From December 2014 to May 2016, BB, who had been in charge of the work from around 2014 to around 2016, testified to the effect that “B” in this court, “B” most of the above sites, except for the AD building site of “Y”, submitted to G or N’s external purchase team by combining the estimates of “Y” with the estimates of “Y”, was submitted to G or N’s external purchase team. “W” as above, the estimates submitted to G were written by adding 3 to 5% of the unit price which the CR Vice Minister submits to Y at will, using the estimates form of other companies kept in its usual storage, by adding Y up 3 to 3 to 5% of the unit price that the estimates prepared and submitted to G were written in almost one envelope (BB record No. 16 pages).

C) The AZ, a representative director of the DL, testified to the effect that the Y employee’s CR requested to conduct a preliminary check and prepared a preliminary estimate (9No. 4,962 pages of investigation records), and that the CR’s tweet was sealed in G or N and sent to Kwikset service by sealing the tweet’s estimate form into tweet. From the following day, the AZ, a representative director of the DL, stated to the effect that the Y employee’s tweet to prepare and submit a written estimate of DL (9 right 4,965 pages of investigation records) and that the tweet was not directly involved in the selection of the supplier of the other date in this court (No. 5 pages of the CZ record).

D) Among the data stored in the YAUSB, the estimates, such as DL, DN, DP, DDR, DK, and DL, were also included in written estimates (see Investigation Records 5,575-5-5,603 pages).

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court in the bidding process related to lighting (Defendant A, B, C, and E), this part of the tender site was conducted at the fourth integrated bidding site, but it can be acknowledged that a negotiated contract was concluded at the urgent request of the construction site, separate from the bidding procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to acknowledge that there was collusion in the bidding procedure as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

A) On October 26, 2016, the R Apartment Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Association, the owner of the Daegu R apartment site, requested to change lighting fixtures constructed in G to LED from a square light, etc. (2: 515 pages of the trial record).

B) Meanwhile, at the above construction site, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade sent a letter of call to the external purchasing team, and the external purchasing team of G sent a letter of call to the company, including Y, around August 3, 2017 (2: 517-534). (3) At the time, there are a large number of sites included in the notice of participation in the bidding at the time, so the Defendants of G seems to have proceeded with the fourth integrated bidding.

C) In the fourth integrated tendering procedure, around August 7, 2017, the company, including Q, submitted a quotation regarding the above site, but all of them failed to conclude a contract in excess of the implementation budget, the division chief at the construction site of the R apartment, on September 5, 2017, sent a written notice of the purport that the company will enter into a contract with Y at KRW 235,482,00,000, exceeding 27,000,000, from the implementation budget related to the lighting fixture at the above site, under the pretext of changing the lighting fixture from around September 5, 2017 to PED (2,543 pages for each trial record) and attached a written estimate of AK and Q, and according to the results of the foregoing written notice, the division chief at the construction site of the R apartment apartment and the request for a contract purchase agreement between 5,00,000,000 won and 235,000,000 won.

E) The AK representative BN testified to the effect that “AK submitted a quotation to the G site of ‘GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

3) Conclusion

Therefore, it is difficult to view that there was an act of interference with bidding, such as the facts charged, without any reasonable doubt, it is difficult to view that there was an act of interference with bidding, and this part of the facts charged is not guilty.

2. The defendants' violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

A. Summary of the facts charged

G The Defendants assumed the same duties as the criminal facts in the part of the crime of occupational breach of trust in the judgment, and Defendant B was aware of them. Defendant B operated by Defendant B, etc. There was no employee in charge of the duties related to the lighting home network, and lighting is an employee in charge of the duties related to the AK and Home Network item, and all duties, such as the designation of products, on-site delivery, installation, repair of defects, etc., are to be performed by the AR and AL employee. Therefore, there was no special role of Y et al. in bidding for the selection of the provider of lighting and home network system.

Nevertheless, Defendant B could not refuse to give the same attitude to the executives and employees in charge of the business of purchasing materials of G and N, referring to a friendly relationship with the chairperson of T Group and to the disadvantage of the company if they do not take their demand. Defendant B instructed the executives in charge or team leader to the effect that they would be subject to the demand of Defendant B. In particular, around September 2015, Defendant AO's current program was broadcasted with AOP to the effect that they would bring suspicions about a product development team, estimate budget team, and outsourcing purchase team's relationship with AP to the effect that they would be subject to the demand of Defendant B. Defendant A, Defendant D, E, and F will be awarded a successful bid at a certain level, and Defendant A would be able to continue to supply a product even after Defendant A attempted to cut off a transaction with Q, E, and F will arrange the successful bid price by combining a large number of sites at each time. Defendant A, CFD, and EN will be selected in accordance with the aforementioned demand for the selection of the product and its home system.

정된 자재를 구매함에 있어 G 및 N의 이익에 부합하는 방법을 배제한 채 Y 등을 납품업체로 미리 정하고, 납품업체 선정을 위한 입찰에 있어 Y 등을 낙찰자로 정한 후 입찰 절차와 결과를 꿰맞추거나 낙찰금액을 사전에 협의하여 결정하는 등 Y 등이 아무런 경쟁 없이 자신의 이익에 부합하게 조명 및 홈네트워크시스템을 납품할 수 있도록 하였다.

As such, Defendant A, C, D, E, and F violated their occupational duty to maximize the company's interests in dealing with G and N's purchase of materials, and put Y, etc. which do not play a substantial role in the supply of materials into an intermediate company for supply contracts of lighting and home network system, and Defendant B, despite being aware of the violation of the regulations on the purchase of materials and the violation of the interests of G and N, requested Defendant A, etc. to select Y, etc. as a supplier, and requested Defendant A, etc. to select Y, etc. as a supplier with knowledge that it violates the regulations on the purchase of materials and violates the interests of G and N, and requested AK and AL to select Y, etc. as a supplier for a long period of time, and to install it at the construction site of G and N to produce and release the above materials, thereby obtaining profits equivalent to the difference in the supply price of Y and the supply price of Y and AL for Y, etc.

Ultimately, from around October 2008 to around October 2017, the Defendants conspired to have Y et al. obtain a total of KRW 12,809,595,392 as shown in the attached Table 7, and caused property damage equivalent to KRW 8,277,383,375 in G Co., Ltd. and KRW 4,532,212,017 in the victim N Co., Ltd.

D. Determination

As examined in the judgment on the issues related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) above, it is difficult to conclude that G entered into a contract with Y with the awareness of the Defendants that the crime of lighting-related part of the facts charged against the Defendants and the home network part prior to the implementation of the integrated tendering procedure would inflict property damage on the company. It is difficult to conclude that G is proven that the specific amount of damages of G and N related to the crime related to the home network after the implementation of the integrated tendering procedure has been proven without any reasonable doubt (Article 57 of the judgment). Accordingly, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged against the Defendants is a case where there is no proof of the facts charged, and thus, it is necessary to determine innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or as long as it is found that each crime of occupational breach of trust was guilty, the judgment is not pronounced

3. Whether Defendant B violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and summary of the facts charged

1) From March 19, 2009 to June 3, 2009, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 484,463,120 of W’s money owned by the Defendant by means of arbitrarily consuming the money distributed from W account, such as the No. 2, 3, and 4 of the crime No. 1 of the attached Table 1 of the crime committed in the attached Table 1, from March 19, 2009 to June 3, 2009, the Defendant embezzled KRW 250,130,000 as shown in the attached Table 1 of the crime No. 1 of the crime List No. 1 of the attached Table 1 of the crime committed in the attached Table 1 of the same crime, and embezzled the same amount from W account to arbitrarily consumed it.

B. Determination

As examined in the judgment on the issues related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in Defendant B, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant embezzled W Fund in relation to this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but in a case where it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judge Political decoration

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

1) The procedures for amending the indictment to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the facts charged of this case and it does not disadvantage the defendants' defense rights.

Criminal facts are recognized by changing the facts charged without being prosecuted.

2) Share ownership in G 2008, G 48.17%, AB Bank 25.3%, AC Bank 7.59%, etc.

3) A company which was a complete subsidiary of G and is dissolved after being merged into G on April 5, 2017.

4) Before April 2010, from around 2010, LY (R) from around 201 to around 201, each operation of LY (business number AR), (ju)Y changed the mission into the AS, and B’s mission.

Change of AT (State) the representative of the wife has changed to (State)Y (Business Number AU).

5) In the context of G, etc., the term “integrated order” was used.

6) In relation to the title, the estimate of the price, such as Y, in relation to all the sites of the first integrated bid, shall be Ulsan with regard to the other days of the tender.

CT apartment, CUtel, and Daejeon CV apartment, the introduction company submitted the same quotation as Y.

7) AS submitted a written estimate of price lower than Y on an acceptable CW apartment and Seosan CX apartment with respect to the others of the first integrated bid.

8) In the first integrated bid, CBI submitted a estimate of the same amount as Y with respect to lighting at four sites from Y in this Court.

In addition to the C Q's profits for the purpose of creating G and trading performance by receiving an estimate for the tender, the tender is not conducted as it is for the estimate received from Y

The testimony was made to the effect that the participants did not have been awarded a successful bid but did not have been awarded a price negotiation proposal (the 6,7 pages of the witness BI recording).

BB, at the time of the first integrated bid, has been in charge of affairs related to others in Y, as well as Y and G, etc. in excess of the enforcement budget in this Court.

The testimony was made to the effect that there was no other company's participation in the process of price negotiations, and that negotiations were conducted only between YB (Witness B).

Recording notes 46,47 pages)

9) BO, whose operations were conducted in CY, has been determined by this Court as successful bidder in the commercial tendering procedure, further price negotiations between the bidder and the bidder.

(1) even if a part of the negotiation is requested, there may be testimony that the quotation submitted at the time of the initial tender will not be re-satised or re-satisfed.

C. (See, e.g., a witness BO record 16 pages)

10) Attached Form 1 / Of the bids related to other days, the rest of each site except for AD building sites.

11) Attached Form 2 [Attachment 2] The remaining parts related to each bidding except the Daegu RR apartment site among the bidding related to lighting.

12) In other words, the companies without contact with the intent of specific unit price to participate in the tender between the Company AK and the Agency similar to the Company AK and AL.

This simply derives from the supply amount of YO G, etc., and addition to the estimated mast higher than the estimated mast by each company;

The bid price submitted by AK or AL during the long-term tendering process implemented by G, etc. is the Y.

In the case of a difference or difference, it should have been lower than the estimated amount submitted by Y, and in fact the actual number of bids to be submitted by Y is somewhat higher than the estimated amount.

quasi-tenders seem to have been submitted repeatedly.

13) Around 2012, N’s product development team was extinguished, and the design team was operated in integration with G (see, e.g., Investigation Records 8: 4,205 pages, etc.).

14) The intention of G et al. to substantially conclude a contract with AK is to be evaluated as part of the so-called ‘the manner of performing such duties'.

However, it is necessary to recognize that Y was a contracting party, and there seems to be no evidence to acknowledge it.

15) Even if based on evidence Nos. 8 and 12 or evidence Nos. 12-1 and 2 of the increase, AK shall broadcast to raise any suspicion related to the instant case and file a complaint related to the instant case.

After this, it seems that the sales agreement has been concluded to grant monopoly power to the field of Y and G with regard to the field of spectrum.

16) In the case of the first integrated tender based on the aggregate value of G, etc. sites, 84.45% compared to the implementation budget, and in the case of the second integrated tender, 86.92% price.

A contract was concluded (see, e.g., 5,724 pages, 5,727 of investigation records).

17) In the case of the second integrated tender, approximately 70% (see, e.g., Investigation Record 11, 6,061 pages)

18) The unit price for the second adjustment is the final unit price for the execution of the contract.

19) The prosecutor appears to have instituted a public prosecution, including the amount of damages against G, which was a complete subsidiary of G, and the amount of damages of G and N.

Y Based on the same basis as the calculated in the corresponding period, the difference in the supply of home network materials to A shall be KRW 833,687,800.

However, this part of the facts charged does not include any information related to what Defendants are the persons who handle the affairs of AA.

In addition, there is no statement to the effect that the damage related to the case was caused, and at the time of the crime of this case, AA is a legal person separate from G.

As long as the AA was a victim separate from G, the AA is only likely to be a victim, and G in determining the amount of damages for occupational breach of trust.

The amount of damage related to A cannot be considered as the damage, and the amount of damage related to A was excluded from the scope of judgment in this part.

20) The provisional payment for the defendant, who is the representative director, was made consecutively on the same day as 137,000,000.

21) The portion of W paid KRW 100,000,000 on March 30, 2009 to AF is highly related to the issuance of a tax invoice in terms of fees from AF.

Inasmuch as it appears to be irrelevant to this part of the funds, it appears that it was irrelevant to this part of the funds (see, e.g., 6 rights in investigation records, 3,099, and 296

22) [Attachment 2] The term “AK-related crimes” in attached Table 1 means the sequences in which crimes are recorded.

23) 100,265,000 won listed in the month in the column for purchase (+ 100,265,000 won of investigation record) of 208 adjusted by CH in 2008

amount consistent with the estimated value

24) Purchase (+3,099 of investigation record) purchase (+3,099 of investigation record) as adjusted by CH in 2008 10,065,000 won listed in April of the column, CH 10% of value-added tax.

amount consistent with the estimated value

25) Such purport is merely a difference in the method of accounting for the portion of the Defendant’s reduction of the price for AK, and thus, modified and recognized.

Since it appears that it is not disadvantageous to the defendant's defense, the facts charged are revised in terms of fees, etc.

26) The first offence maximum + 1/2 of the upper limit of the second offence + 1/3 of the upper limit of the third offence.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.