Do 2019 4099 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

(name of partial preliminary crime: Occupational Breach of Trust)

(b) interference with tenders;

C. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

1. (a) and (b);

A

2.(a)(b)(c)

B

3.(a)(b)

C

4.(a)(b)

D

5.(a)(b)

E

6.(a)(b)

F

Defendant A, C, D, E, F and Prosecutor

KJ (for Defendant A, C, D, E, and F) a legal entity

Attorney final paths, Hong Jong, Kim Jin-jin

Law Firm Barun (for Defendant B)

Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon, Lee Jin-ju, Lee Jin-jin

Seoul High Court Decision 2018No 1972 decided February 22, 2019

June 13, 2019

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and rendered a verdict of not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the charge of occupational breach of trust as to the defendant Eul's second and third integrated bidding among the facts charged in this case, and the charge of occupational breach of trust, which is a preliminary public prosecution, among the facts charged in this case, on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below. Upon examining the records, the court below did not err by violating the logic and experience legal rules and thereby deviating from the limits of free evaluation due to free evaluation.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the acquittal. However, as to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) which is the primary charge of the defendant against the defendant, there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the reasons for appeal.

2. On the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant F, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment below, the lower court convicted each of the aforementioned Defendants of the tender interference points (excluding the part not guilty of the first instance court and each of the lower court’s orders) among the facts charged against the said Defendants on the grounds as indicated in the judgment. Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on “the risk of undermining the fairness of bidding” or “the risk of undermining the free will due to a joint principal offender, bidding interference” and “the risk of undermining the fairness of bidding” by violating the logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Min You-sook

State Jo Hee-de

Justices Lee Dong-won