All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the obstruction of the Defendants’ bidding

A. Interference with the tender is a dangerous crime established when the fairness of the tender is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or by other means, and where there is an act detrimental to the fairness of the tender, it is sufficient to do so, and it does not need to appear in reality that there is an unfair result.

In this context, “act detrimental to the fairness of bidding” means an act that causes a situation that is likely to obstruct fair competition, that is, causes an unreasonable impact on the adequate price formation through fair competition. Such act includes not only an act detrimental to the propriety of pricing, but also an act detrimental to the legality and fairness of competition methods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do600, May 24, 1994; 2002Do3924, Sept. 26, 2003). In addition, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the act detrimental to the fairness of bidding by deeming that the act detrimental to the fairness of bidding constitutes an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding, even if there is no need to participate in collusion between certain bidders, and even if there was a collusion among them, it constitutes an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do485, Apr. 26, 2006).

(c)

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, and did so.