2013, 427, 449 (Joints)

(a) Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

B. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Property in breach of trust;

1. (a) . (b) . (c) - g., freeboard;

2. A. ○○ Comprehensive Construction Company

3. (a) . (b) . d. west ○, Company Board

4. A. B. D. Da. Kim-○, and Company Board

Jinsung (Institution of Prosecution) and Maternity (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Jong-soo (for defendant Park ○)

Law Firm Jinsu, Attorneys Kim Ho-jin (Defendant Park ○, ○○ General Construction Notes)

For the corporation:

Attorney Park Jung-hoon (for defendant ○○)

mountainous District Law Firm, Attorney Yu Jae-man, and Cho Jae-chul (Defendant Kim-○)

(n)

Attorney Im Sung-sung (for defendant Kim ○-○)

January 10, 2014

Defendant Park Jong-ok imprisonment for one year, and Defendant ○ General Construction Co., Ltd. for a fine of 20,000,000

A person who is an ancient ○○ shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

However, with respect to the defendant Park ○ for two years, and with respect to the defendant Kim ○, the above punishment shall be imposed for three years.

shall be deferred.

A penalty of KRW 80,00,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant Seo-○○○.

Defendant ○○ General Construction Co., Ltd. is ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal History Office

1. Basic facts

In the case of a construction project tender with an estimated price of at least 30 billion won, the Public Procurement Service shall examine the appropriateness of the tender price for each type of work from the bidder at the lowest price, select a person whose total number of units of work is less than 20% as one step-by-stage examiner, and then again, at the review committee, assess detailed types of inappropriate types of work for the first step-by-stage examiner from the lowest bidder, and select a person whose evaluation score is at least 85 points as the final successful bidder.

한편 조달청에서는 최저가낙찰제 심사소요기간 단축 등을 위해 2004 . 1 . 경부터 주식 회사 OOOOO 컨설팅 ( 이하 ' ○○○○○ 컨설팅 ’ 이라 한다 ) 과 용역계약을 체결하여 ' 최 저가낙찰제 심사업무 전산화를 위한 전산프로그램개발 사업 ' 을 추진하였고 , 2004 . 4 . 경 전산프로그램의 하나인 ‘ 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사프로그램 ' 을 개발하였으며 , 그때 부터 ○○○○○ 컨설팅 등 관련업체와 ‘ 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사프로그램 ’ 개선 및 운영상의 위탁관리 용역계약을 체결하였고 , 2007 . 1 . 1 . 부터 2012 . 12 . 28 . 까지 주식 회사 ◎◎◎◎ 정보기술 ( 이하 ' ◎◎◎◎ 정보기술 ' 이라 한다 ) 과 ' 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사프로그램 ' 개선 및 운영상의 위탁관리 용역계약을 체결하였다 .

The bidders for the construction project subject to the lowest preliminary bid system shall connect the tender files in which the bid amount, etc. for each type of work are entered to the national integrated electronic procurement system, and shall be stored in secret and stored, and after the conclusion of the tender, the general manager of the facility of the Public Procurement Service and the bid execution officer shall connect the national market to the national market. At this time, the tender is stored in the network server (NAS). The tender execution officer shall store the tender files stored in the network server and store them in a separate office computer within the office, and shall request the examination by civil engineering environment by linking the "the minimum evaluation program for the lowest price bid" to the "D/B.

A person in charge of civil engineering environment and examination shall evaluate the appropriateness of the tender price for each type of work, calculate the improper number of units of work, and select a person who has passed the first stage examination by calculating the number of units of work.

피고인 서○○는 2003 . 3 . 10 . ○○○○○ 컨설팅에 입사한 후 2004 . 1 . 경부터 조달 청 토목환경과 위탁운영팀에 소속되어 상주하면서 위 ‘ 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사프 로그램 ’ 개발과 관련하여 주요업무를 담당하였고 , 이후 2006 . 5 . 1 . ◎◎◎◎ 정보기술 에 입사한 후 2007 . 1 . 1 . 경부터 조달청 토목환경과 위탁운영팀에 소속되어 상주하면 서 ' 입찰 및 계약내역 작성 ' 과 관련하여 프로그램 오류 사항에 대한 조치 등 유지 보 수 , ‘ 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사와 관련하여 프로그램 오류 사항에 대한 조치 등 유 지 보수 , 사용자 지원 및 사용자 요청에 의한 시스템의 보완개발 , 최저가 입찰금액 적 정성 심사 시스템에의 이행실태 결과 입력 관리 , 2단계 심사시스템에 감점사항 반영 등 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사 시스템이 원활하게 작동하여 공정한 심사가 이루어질 수 있도록 하는 ‘ 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사프로그램 ’ 개선 및 운영상의 위탁관리 업 무를 담당하였는데 , 이를 위해서 개찰업무와 심사업무 운영시스템에 모두 접속할 수 있었고 , ‘ 최저가 입찰금액 적정성 심사프로그램 ' 에 접속하여 최저가 심사 데이터베이스 ( D / B ) 에 저장된 공사 관련 입찰서 내용을 미리 확인하고 잘못 작성된 입찰서를 수정 하여 업로드하는 등 입찰서를 임의로 교체할 수 있었다 .

From July 24, 2003 to March 31, 2006, Defendant ○○○ was in charge of cost accounting as contract workers in the civil engineering environment of the Public Procurement Service, and on April 1, 2006, Defendant 1 entered the ○○○ industry, Inc. (hereinafter “OOOO industry”) and was in charge of bid for construction works subject to the minimum successful bid.

From January 2, 2007, ○○○ Industry Headquarters, as an executive officer in charge of the adequacy of civil engineering dogs belonging to ○○○○ Industry Headquarters, has overall control over overall affairs, such as the minimum bid process for construction works subject to the successful bid process.

From May 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010, Defendant Park ○ is the managing director of ○ General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ General Construction”). From January 1, 2011, Defendant Park ○ was in charge of operating business as a pre-general manager and of participating in bid for the highest price bid.

Defendant ○ General Construction is a corporation established for the purpose of civil engineering construction construction business.

2. Defendants’ violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and obstruction of performance of justice

A. The co-principal of Defendant Seo-○ and Kim Il-○

Defendant Seo-○ was aware of Defendant Kim ○, who was a contracting employee of the Public Procurement Service at the time of stay in the Public Procurement Service as an employee of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ consulting, and Defendant Kim ○, a vice head of the civil engineering field of ○○○○○ industry, on December 2, 2009, at the lowest price offered by the Public Procurement Service, can be confirmed in advance that the inappropriate construction type of tender submitted by the bidder would fall in excess of 5.5 times, which is the first phase of passing through the first phase of examination, and in such a case, it was notified that the tender file may be replaced so as to be accompanied by the first phase examination.

On December 2, 2009, Defendant ○○ proposed that Defendant ○○ will substitute a tender file and pass the first step examination in case where the inappropriate type of work to be invested in the Defendant Kim ○○○’s industry exceeds the one step-by-level passing standard at the time of cross-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-party- by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-by-party-party- by-party- by-party- by-party-by-party- by-party- by-party- by-party-by

Defendant Kim Jong-○, around that time, considered that at ○○○○’s office of regular manager of the ○○○ industry in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a tender may be replaced by one step prior to the first step examination and passed the first step examination.

Around that time, ○○○ reported the content of the report from Defendant Kim○-○ to the purport that, upon receiving the cooperation from the staff of the Public Procurement Service that Kim○-○ had been aware of working at the Public Procurement Service at the Public Procurement Service, in the event of falling from the first stage examination, he could pass through the first stage examination by changing the tender document. The river is difficult for the company to run at ○○-○○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-○-si

◇에게 보고하라고 지시하였다 .

At the office of the president of the ○○ Industry, ○○○○ continuously reported to him/her the above contents of the report to him/her, and in addition, if there is such a method to ○○○○ in the same place, and ordered the president to report to him/her.

In accordance with the direction of the above lecture, at the minimum office of the president of the ○○○ Industry pursuant to the direction of the suit, he reported to the highest person the above lecture and the report to him as it is, and the minimum is:

In that place, as the company's financial pressure is so severe that it is necessary to prepare funds immediately before the bankruptcy, the company ordered ○○ to implement it, but if there is such a method, the company ordered ○○ to receive construction orders.

On January 2010, Ma○○○○ Industries reported to the police officer at the above ○○○○ industry, that he would take measures to allow the participation of the tender at one step-by-level examination by changing the tender in the process of national road construction works from Ha-dong to Ha-dong and Ha-dong 2). After obtaining consent from the above river station, Ha-dong and Ha-dong, Ha-dong and Ha-dong 2, he ordered the defendant Kim○○ to pass one step-by-level examination by changing the tender document in the process of bidding at the national road construction.

Defendant ○○, on January 2010, asked Defendant Seo-○, by telephone, to replace tender documents so that it can be subject to the first-stage examination in the event that the inappropriate number of construction work units in the bidding process of “Hadong-Dong-dong National Highway Construction Work” to the ○○ industry is anticipated to fall beyond 5.5.

On January 15, 2010, Defendant ○○ confirmed the contents of the tender document at the level of 00 ○○ industry by linking the minimum bid price to the civil engineering environment and the adequacy review program review program program rather than the party to the civil engineering environment and the examination team. As a result, when improper construction work units are anticipated to fall up to nine, Defendant ○○ notified Defendant Kim○-○ of improper construction type number by telephone, and Defendant Kim○-○ of improper construction type number by changing the tender file for modifying the tender document from the first tender document to the revised tender file for the first tender document.

As a result, the Defendants interfered with the bidding of 47 constructors participating in the tender of the above construction project in relation to the "Hadong-dong National Highway Construction Project" that was ordered by the Public Procurement Service in collusion by fraudulent means, and interfered with the minimum price of the public officials in charge of the Public Procurement Service in the bid of the construction project subject to the successful bid system, and interfered with the examination of the tender of the construction project subject to the successful bid system in attached Form 1 through 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 10 times in total, including the above 10 times in the bid process of the construction project subject to the successful bid system, and interfered with the bidding of the construction project subject to the successful bid system by fraudulent means, such as replacing the tender by the above method and passing the first step examination.

B. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant Park ○, SOO, and Kim ○-○

From October 2010 to November 2010, Defendant ○○○○ General Construction Executive Director (in 2011, promotion to PO) known to the public procurement office at the time of serving as a contractual position in the early 2003 by telephone between the first police officer from October 10, 201 to the early 2010, requested Defendant ○○ General Construction Executive Director (in 201, promotion to PO) to pass one step-by the first step-by the public procurement office, “The date of ordering by the public procurement office. - The public procurement office may assist the public procurement office to pass one step-by the final package bid process of the State-funded local government-funded local government-funded local government-funded local government-funded local government-funded local government, and in return, the amount of KRW 20,000,000 is required.” Defendant ○○ requested Defendant ○ to pass the first step-by the public procurement process through a person assisting the public procurement office.

On November 2010, Defendant ○○ asked Defendant Seo-○○ to change tender documents so that the number of improper types of work to be covered by ○○○ integrated construction would be more than 5.5 in the course of the tender for the confirmation and packing of the local highway.

On November 3, 2010, Defendant ○○ confirmed the contents of the tender document by linking the minimum bid price to the civil engineering environment and the adequacy review program review system in the office of the Public Procurement Service. As a result, as the improper number of construction units was anticipated to fall up to 7 to 1 level review, Defendant 2 notified Defendant Kim○ by telephone of the improper construction type number, and Defendant Kim○ was sent the file of tender document that modified the tender document for each type from Defendant Kim○ to Defendant Kim○ and passed the first stage review by replacing it to the modified tender file of tender document.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in a successive manner and ordered by the Public Procurement Service - The Defendants interfered with the bidding of the 113 constructors participating in the tender of the above construction project in relation to the National Supported Local Highway. The Defendants interfered with the bidding of the 113 constructors participating in the tender of the above construction project, and interfered with the tender of the public officials in charge of the Public Procurement Service at the Public Procurement Service by fraudulent means, such as the attached Table (1), No. 6, No. 10, and No. 13, by replacing the tender in the tender process of the lowest price project subject to the successful bid bid system ordered by the Public Procurement Service for three times in total, such as the above method, and obstructing the tender of the construction project subject to the successful bid system, and interfered with the examination of the tender by the public officials in charge of the Public Officials at the Public Procurement Service at the lowest price.

C. Defendant Seo-○’s crime

In 2010, Defendant Seo-gu, a construction company (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”), the head of the civil defense team division, and the head of the △△△△△△△△△△△, known of the △△△△△△△△△△△ in the early and around 2011, the first step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step-by step

On June 28, 2011, the head of the △△△△△△△, on the telephone, asked the Defendant Seo-○○ to determine whether the construction could pass one step-by-stage examination as improper type of work in the tender process of “the new construction of five public sewage treatment facilities project in Gwangju 2, etc.”, and Defendant Seo-○, in the civil engineering environment and office of the Public Procurement Service, had access to the item at the time of examining the appropriateness of the minimum bid price rather than the person in charge of civil engineering environment and examination, and confirmed the improper type of work in the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ by accessing the item to the item at the time of examining the appropriateness of the program.

Defendant Seo-gu, a tender for construction to the head of △△△△△, is first priority, and the minimum number of units of work is high so that it could not pass the first step examination. Defendant 1 received a request from the head of △△△△△△ for replacement of tender documents.

Defendant 1 notified the head of △△△△△ of the 30-type standard amount of “(5) new public sewage treatment plant construction project” in Gwangju 2, and sent a tender file that modified the tender amount for each type of work from the head of △△△△△△△ to the first revised tender file and had it pass the first stage of examination by changing the tender file to the revised tender file.

Accordingly, in collusion with the head of the △△△△△, Defendant 2 interfered with the tender of 25 constructors who participated in the tender of the above construction work by comparing with the △△△△△△△△△△, 'five new public sewage treatment plant construction project' and the 25 public sewage treatment plant construction project ordered by the Public Procurement Service by fraudulent means, such as the attached list of crimes (1) No. 9.

D. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by Defendant 0 ○ General Construction

Park Jong-○, an employee of the defendant, interfered with the tender of other constructors by fraudulent means with respect to the defendant's work, as described in the above B.

3. Property in breach of trust by Defendant SOO

(a) the receipt of money or valuables related to the construction of the national highways from around to around South Korea (one construction section);

Defendant Seo-○, as stated in Section 2-A., ordered from Kim○-○, etc., to the Public Procurement Service, from 1st century, to 3th century, Defendant Seo-○ was able to substitute tender documentation and pass the first step-by-level examination by replacing tender documentation in relation to the construction work (one section) on the Nannam National Road (one section) [Attachment 1] to the Nannam National Road (one section) [Attachment 1].

On June 2010, 2010, ○○○○ Industry Chairperson of ○○○○○○○, prepared by Kim○, in return for the above solicitation, and received KRW 30,000,000,00,000 from Gangnam-si, Daejeon, from around the X-si, Daejeon.

As a result, Defendant Seo-○ acquired property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

(b) Acceptance of money and other valuables related to the State-funded local highway packing construction between days to Monmon;

Defendant Seo-○, as described in Section 2-b., ordered from Kim○-○ at the request of Gao-○ to the public procurement office, the local government-funded local highway package work (attached Form 1, No. 6 times a year) between Monan and Monan-do government-funded local highway package work (attached Form 1, No. 6 times a year). Defendant Seo-○, upon receipt of a request to replace a bid to replace a bid made by OO integrated construction, made it possible to pass the first stage examination by replacing the tender.

Defendant Seo-○, on November 2010, issued KRW 20,000,000, which was prepared by the said Kim○, in return for the above solicitation on the roads near the government general office building located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, and delivered to Kim○.

As a result, the defendant OO acquired the property in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

(c) Acceptance of money or valuables related to the project for expanding administrative cities or for expanding roads;

Defendant 2-C. 2-C. 3, Defendant 2-2, as indicated in the above paragraph, ordered by the Public Procurement Service by the Kim○○○ at the request of the above Park○○ as stated in the above paragraph, Defendant Seo-O made it possible for Defendant 2 to replace the tender reflected in the General Construction (State No. 1) in relation to the “Administrative City or Civil Aviation Road Expansion Corporation (No. 10 per annum No. 10 per annum)” to pass one step-by-stage examination by replacing the tender in response to the request for replacement of the tender.

On November 201, 201, Defendant ○○ issued KRW 20 million, which was prepared by the said Kim○○, in return for the above solicitation, on the road near the government general office building located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and delivered to Kim○.

As a result, Defendant Seo-○ acquired property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

(d) Acceptance of money and valuables related to construction works (stage 1) for a new city (stage 3) for the relocation of the Gyeong-do Office of North Korea;

Defendant Seo-○, as described in Section 2-b. B., ordered from Kim○○ upon the request of Park○○, to construct a new city (stage 1) project (stage 1) project (stage 3), the construction project (stage 13), which was ordered by the Public Procurement Service, was made in relation to the construction of the new city (stage 1) [Attachment 13 No. 13], so that the tender may be replaced by the replacement of the tender in return for the request for replacement of the tender reflected in the comprehensive construction at ○○○○○.

On October 2012, 2012, Defendant Seo-○ prepared by the above Kim○○ from around Dong-dong apartment, Daejeon, Daejeon, in return for the above solicitation, and received KRW 10 million from the above Kim○ to the former Kim○○.

As a result, Defendant Seo-○ acquired property in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his duties.

4. The evidence of the defendant Park Jong-ok and KimO's misappropriation

A. Defendant Kim Jae-in

Defendant ○○○, in collusion with this○○○, a lecture, and a regular ○○○, gave KRW 30 million in return for an illegal solicitation in respect of his duties to ○○, as described in paragraph 2(a).

B. Defendants

1) Offering money and other valuables related to the State-funded Local Highway Packing Corporation from the day to the day.

The Defendants conspired to deliver KRW 20 million in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with their duties, such as set forth in paragraph 2(b).

2) Offering money and other valuables relating to the project of expanding administrative cities to petition ICT.

The Defendants conspired to deliver KRW 20 million in return for an illegal solicitation in connection with their duties, such as set forth in paragraph 2(c).

3) Provision of money and valuables relating to the construction project (stage 1) for the new city (stage 3) for the relocation of the Gyeongbuk-do Office.

The Defendants conspired to deliver KRW 10 million in return for an illegal solicitation with respect to their duties, such as the description in paragraph 2 (d).

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

A. Defendant Park ○: Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 357(2) and (1), 357(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of giving rise to breach of trust)

(b) Comprehensive construction by Defendant 0: each of Article 98(2) and Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

C. Defendant Seo-○: Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with a bidding by deceptive means), Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means), Articles 357(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of giving rise to misappropriation)

D. Defendant Kim ○: Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Crimes of Obstruction of Tender by Fraudulent Means), Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means), Articles 357(2) and (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of giving rise to misappropriation)

1. Competition;

Defendant Park ○, Seo-○, and Kim ○: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act [Punishments imposed on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as to each column of the following year, the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means, and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry with heavier gravity of the nature of the crime]

1. Selection of penalty;

In regard to the crime of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the crime of giving property in breach of trust, and the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the selection of imprisonment for each crime of taking property in breach of trust.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant Park ○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment and imprisonment for concurrent crimes, which are set forth in the crime of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (1) No. 10 times per annum of the attached Table with the largest punishment and imprisonment]

(b) Comprehensive construction of defendant ○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [the punishment prescribed for the crime of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry at a 10-time rate per annum of the annexed crime sight table (1) with the largest penalty]

(c) Defendant Seo-○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50]

(d) Defendant Kim Jong-○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50]

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant Park ○ and Kim ○: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing):

1. Additional collection:

Defendant Seo-○: the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant ○ General Construction: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The construction of defendant gambling, O integrated construction

(a) The scope of the applicable sentences;

1) Defendant Park ○: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months;

2) Defendant OO integrated construction: A fine not exceeding 70,000 won

(b) Determination of sentence;

1) Defendant Park ○: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution.

2) Defendant 0○ Comprehensive Construction: Fines 20 million won

Defendant Park ○-○’s crime of this case, which seriously undermines the fairness of the public procurement agency’s bid process and the social trust therein, and the responsibility for such crime is not against the law.

However, the defendants recognized the crime of this case and divided the defendants' mistake in depth, the defendant Park ○ was the first offender, the contract of construction that was awarded by the defendant ○○ Construction was initiated due to the crime of this case, and the contract of construction that was awarded by the defendant ○○ Construction was considerably under the management of administrative disposition such as restriction on participation in the tendering procedure, and the defendant Park ○ seems to have committed the crime of this case on behalf of the company not for personal interest, not for personal interest, by taking into consideration favorable circumstances, the sentence like the order shall be determined.

2. Defendant OO

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

The crime of this case is committed by the defendant, who is a person in charge of the above consignment management of the program development service company for the computerization of the minimum successful bid system, has interfered with bidding activities by the tender body using the above program in conflict with the purpose of the entrustment, and is paid 80 million won in total in return for the successful bid in the construction project.

It is very poor that the public's trust in the tendering service of the Public Procurement Service and the trust relationship with the affiliated company has been destroyed, and the crime is very poor.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized as committing a crime, and the defendant has a depth pened, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than twice a fine, etc. shall be determined by the same sentence as the main sentence in consideration of favorable circumstances.

3. Defendant Kim Jong-han

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

(b) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and three years of a stay of execution;

The defendant's criminal act of this case seriously undermines the fairness of the public tender service of the Public Procurement Service and the trust of the general public.

However, it shall be determined by the same sentence as the order in consideration of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and divided the mistake in depth, the defendant was the first offender, the construction contract that the 000 industry was awarded by the crime of this case was revoked due to the crime of this case, the construction contract was revoked, the participation restriction was subject to an administrative disposition, which was subject to a restriction on the qualification for participation, the crime of this case was committed under the proposal of the OO in the circumstances where the operation of the company is difficult, and the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case for his own interest rather than for his own interest.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Ahn Byung-chul

Judges Hong-han

Judges Jeon Soo-soo

* Crime List: omitted