beta
Text
Defendant
A and B Each fine of KRW 5,00,000, Defendant C and D shall be fine of KRW 7,000,000,000, Defendant E and F shall be fine of KRW 2.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Status of the Defendants] Defendant A is the head of the business team of H, Inc., a specialized construction business entity, and Defendant B is a person who manages the work site at H H H H H H H branch.
Defendant
C was a person who had worked as the managing director of the G Apartment-si I apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) from June 12, 2015, and Defendant D was a person who had served as the president of the council of occupants of the instant apartment from May 1, 2015.
Defendant
E is the Director General of the Business Co., Ltd. of the Unclaimed, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance and Management Company J (hereinafter referred to as “J”), and Defendant F is the representative director of the K Specialized Construction Business Company (hereinafter referred to as “K”).
[2] Defendant B, who was aware of around March 2016, heard that Defendant C had a plan for painting and waterproof construction work on the apartment of this case, and proposed that Defendant C and Defendant D would be 10% of the construction cost if Defendant C and Defendant D would be able to receive a successful bid for the instant construction work, and Defendant C and Defendant D accepted this.
Accordingly, on June 20, 2016, Defendant C and Defendant D included the contents favorable to H, such as “L (M)’s possession of technical capacity as a requirement for participation in the bidding,” when publicly announcing the bid for the instant apartment construction company to the multi-family housing management information system, but on June 27, 2017, H lost eligibility for participation in the instant apartment construction after being subject to a sanction not to use L (M) for three months for the period of time. Defendant A submitted a letter to the representative meeting of the occupants of the instant apartment, stating that “this bid price collusion exists” at the meeting of the occupants of the instant apartment, following the resolution of the representative meeting of occupants on July 14, 2016.
Even if there is a doubt that the bid price is unfair due to collusion, the bid price may be submitted to the public in accordance with the bidding notice, and the technical history of L (M) on August 19, 2016.