Whether it is necessary to establish a result that actually harms the fairness of bidding in the establishment of a interference with bidding;

The interference with bidding is a dangerous crime established when the fairness of bidding is harmed by a deceptive scheme, threat of force, or by other means, and if an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding is conducted, it is sufficient to do so, and it is not necessary to cause a result that actually harms the fairness of bidding.

Article 315 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Gwangju District Court Decision 93No703 delivered on January 28, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

The interference with bidding is a dangerous crime that is established when the fairness of bidding is harmed by a deceptive scheme, threat of force, or any other means. If a person commits an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding, it is sufficient to do so, and it is not necessary to cause an actual result to harm the fairness of bidding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do3395, Feb. 23, 1993; 87Do2646, Mar. 8, 198). / If a person who manipulates the highest bidder or participates in a bid in collusion with one another and agrees to choose a specific person as a successful bidder, the other person is at a risk of undermining the fairness of bidding, regardless of the receipt of money or valuables, and there is no dispute over the price of collusion between the bidders, and the actual unit price of successful bid is lower than the scheduled unit price of successful bid, and thus there is no risk or attempted to commit the bidding.

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to obstruction of bidding, and the court below's finding of facts and judgment is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to obstruction of bidding. The court below's decision is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the error of sentencing in sentencing in this case where a sentence of imprisonment for less than 10 years has been pronounced, as it is not appropriate in this case due to different cases.

2. Defendant 2’s ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the records adopted by the court of first instance, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged is fully justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and the grounds that the sentencing was erroneous in the case of which imprisonment for less than 10 years was sentenced shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal. The grounds for appeal

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

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)