Defendant

A Imprisonment for 10 months, Defendant B and C shall be punished by imprisonment for 6 months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of M Co., Ltd. (N, 3th floor in Jeju), Defendant B is the representative director of P Co., Ltd. (O) who carries on general waste collection and transportation business, and Defendant C is the representative director of Q Q Co., Ltd. (R on Jeju) who carries on construction waste collection and transportation business.

Defendant

A establishes O and Q by investing 100% of shares in M in the name of M, and M andO, and Q are in subordinate relationship with each other, and M generally manages major affairs such as accounts for the three companies in relation to the construction waste disposal business.

The Defendants opened a cell phone “Kakaox” group room to receive a successful bid in the construction waste disposal service electronic bid for construction waste disposal services, such as the construction project ordered through the National Electronic Procurement System of the Public Procurement Service in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, Jeju City, or Spoposi, etc. (hereinafter “Bater”), and set a bid price by mutual consultation about the service subject to the tender (construction) and bid section, the bid price (the bid price ± the estimated bid price x 100), and failed to raise the successful bid rate by jointly reporting the same bid price in the name of two or more companies from among three companies, such as M,O, Q, etc. represented by the Defendants.

As a result, when the electronic bid “S (Public Notice No. T)” ordered by Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (Maritime Port Department) around March 22, 2016 was publicly announced in the national market, the Defendants came to be awarded the bid price ratio by accessing the computer from the office of three enterprises, such as M, to the national market on March 25, 2016 and raising the successful bid ratio by joint bidding (20%), and Q was awarded the bid price ratio.

As such, Defendant A and B conspired with each other from January 9, 2014 to May 11, 2016, including that the Defendants conspired to interfere with the fairness of bidding by fraudulent means.