(a) Whether the act of pretending to competitive bidding while conducting a single bidding constitutes a crime of interference with bidding;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the appellate court reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and found the defendant guilty, and omitted the criminal facts and the summary of evidence, thereby

A. The crime of interference with bidding does not require that the unfair bid result as a dangerous crime is not actually revealed, and the act includes not only the act of determining the price but also the act of lawfully impairing the fair competition method. Thus, the act is merely a means to prevent the tender price and thus it does not harm the buyer's interest in the bid price or cause the bidder to gain unjust profits, even if the act was not a means to prevent the tender price, if it is pretend that the bid price was a competitive bidding while it was actually a single tender, it would hinder the fairness of bidding in that it would cause the successful bid.

B. The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and recognized the defendant as still guilty, and omitted the criminal facts and the gist of evidence, it violates Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates that the facts of crime, the abstract of evidence, and the application of the Act and subordinate statutes shall be clearly stated in the grounds for the judgment when a sentence is pronounced.

A. Article 315 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Do519 delivered on April 30, 1971, 71Do519 delivered on July 13, 1976, 74Do717 delivered on July 13, 1976

Defendant

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 87No262 delivered on December 3, 1987

The lower judgment and the first instance judgment are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The obstruction of bidding does not require the actual appearance of the result as a dangerous crime, and the act includes not only the act of determining the price, but also the act of impairing the lawful and fair competition method. Therefore, even if the act did not harm the interests of the bidder in the bid price or cause the bidder to gain unjust profits, if it is actually a competitive bidding while conducting a single competitive bidding, it would cause the successful bid in that it would cause the successful bid as a price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 71Do519, Apr. 30, 197; 74Do717, Jul. 13, 1976; 74Do717, Jul. 13, 1976). In this regard, the court below was justified in finding the defendant guilty by taking account of the evidence duly investigated by the court of first instance, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the obstruction of bid or misunderstanding of facts.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and still found the defendant guilty, and omitted the criminal facts and the summary of evidence. This is in violation of Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that the crimes to be committed in the reason of the judgment, the summary of evidence and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes shall be specified in the case where a sentence of punishment is rendered, and therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be reversed. Since it is deemed sufficient to render a judgment based on the records and evidence examined up to the court below, the judgment of the court of first instance, which recognized the establishment of a crime of interference with bidding by a member of the party, is legitimate in light of the above explanation of the reasoning, but in light of the various circumstances, which are the conditions of sentencing specified in the records, the judgment of the court of first instance is too unreasonable, and thus, the judgment of the court of

In collusion with Non-Indicted 1 and 2 on August 7, 1984, the Defendant submitted the necessary tender documents, etc. in collusion with Non-Indicted 1 and 2, for the purpose of having the Defendant win a successful bid at the Incheon junior college student and office located in Nam-gu Incheon, Incheon, Incheon, 235 at the above university on the school year of 1984, on the ground that Non-Indicted 3 operated a photographer in the North-gu, Incheon, Cheongcheon-dong and Non-Indicted 4 operated by the photographer as the most competitor, etc. at the above-mentioned, and submitted the above student and office at around November 12:00 of the above month, the Defendant participated in the name, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 4, and Non-Indicted 1 will be awarded a successful bid of 4,2750,000 won in the name of Non-Indicted 3, thereby impairing the fairness of the above tender through a deceptive scheme.

The facts of the ruling shall:

1. The defendant and the non-indicted 1 and 2's statement corresponding thereto in the first instance court and the court of the original instance

1. Among each protocol of interrogation of the suspect as to the defendant, non-indicted 1, and 2 prepared by the prosecutor, each part of the statement corresponding thereto is written.

1. The description corresponding thereto among the self-written statements on the preparation of Kimyang-do;

1. It may be sufficiently recognized in full view of each copy, etc. of the documents related to tender bound on the face of Articles 206 through 253 of the investigation records;

The so-called "defluence" in the law, the so-called of the defendant's ruling is that the defendant is punished by a fine of 50,000 won within the scope of the increased amount pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Provisional Measures such as Fines, etc. Act, and the defendant does not pay the above fine of 5,000 won under Articles 69 (2) and 70 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who have been involved in the detention of the defendant in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the day into 5,00 won when the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)