2014 Highest 1373(a) Bidding interference

(b) Violation of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Sales;

(c) Information and communications construction business violation;

1. A.

2. A. (b) B

3.(a)(b) C

4. (a) D

5. (a)(b) E

6.(a)(c) F

7 (a) G

8. C. H

9.(c) I

10.(c) J

Park Jong-chul, Park Jong-young, and tear-up (public trial)

Attorney K (Defendant A and C)

Attorney L, M (for the defendant B)

Law Firm N (Defendant D and J)

Attorney O, P, Q

Attorney R (Defendant E and H)

Law FirmS (Defendant F)

Attorney T,U in charge

Law firm V (Defendant G)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Attorneys Y (the national election for Defendant 1)

August 18, 2016

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 months, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G, respectively, with prison labor for one year.

Defendant H and I shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million for six months, respectively, and by a fine of KRW 4 million.

Defendant H, I, or J does not pay the above fine, the period converted each one hundred thousand won into one day.

The above Defendants are confined in the workhouse.

except that for Defendant A and B, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G

The execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To Defendant A, a community service for 120 hours shall be ordered to Defendant A, and a community service for 160 hours shall be ordered to Defendant B.

Defendant H, I, and J order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is an auditor of the Z Association in Gangwon-do, who is substantially operating AA and AB (RepresentativeC). Defendant B is the vice-chairperson of the above Gangwon-do Association, and is practically operating AD Co., Ltd and AE (Representative Director). Defendant C is the company of AG Stock Association, Defendant D is the company of AH (Representative AI), Defendant E is the company of AH (Representative Director), Defendant E is the limited company (Representative Director), and Defendant F is the company of AL. Defendant G is the chairperson of the above Gangwon-do Association as the chairperson of the Association of Gangwon-do, and Defendant H is the company of AM, the company of AM, and the company of H is the person working as the company of BO in Gangwon-do. Defendant AO is the company of Grade II radio communication engineer of Grade II, Defendant J is the person working as the engineer of telecommunication equipment and information and communication engineer of Incheon City.

1. Interference with bidding;

A. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant F

Defendant A and Defendant B were unable to receive orders through a competitive bidding called "AP" competitive bidding ordered in Chuncheon City. At the same time, Defendant AUB corporation, AD corporation, limited liability company, AAJ corporation, AG corporation, AG corporation, AL corporation, and AH of stock companies located within the "AS complex located in Chuncheon City," the Council was organized, and only the above companies were designated as bidding participants at Chuncheon City and requested to order the production and purchase of government-funded materials. At around December 5, 201, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, and F, and Defendant B’s automatic control team AU’s automatic control team (“Council”) made up of Defendant A, Defendant B, the Chairman of the Council, and Defendant B’s 1,201, appointed each of the above companies as bidding participants, and Defendant B’s 1,201, and then the competent Minister of 21,2016.

Since then, around December 15, 2011, the Defendants established the order of "BB" restaurant in Chuncheon City, and even if any of the above 8 enterprises receives a successful bid, they shall work in the order of "AV Council" regardless of the results of the successful bid. The contractor shall pay the profits to the 'AV Council', and the remaining companies shall distribute the profits to the 'AB', and (i) the 'AB', 'AJ', 'AJ', 'AJ', 'AJ', 'AB', 'AP', 'AU', 'AU'.

Accordingly, the Defendants pretended as if the above companies were competing between December 19, 201 and December 20, 201 to the 200th 20th 20th , Defendant C operating AG Co., Ltd. and Defendant C operating AJ with a limited liability company are set at the office of each of the above companies within the AS Complex in Chuncheon-si, and Defendant D, who will not participate in the bidding with the knowledge that even if awarded a successful bid, it is impossible to supply government supplies materials at Chuncheon-si. Defendant D operating AU and AH 24,37,00 won, and 223,198,50 won, and 200 won, 307, 200, 209, 307, 209, 209, 300, 204, 207, 200, 3200, 320, 204, 209, 207, 2000.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion three times, such as the No. 1 to No. 3 of the above list of crimes, and all Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant E, and Defendant F had engaged in the fairness of bidding through a deceptive scheme over one time, such as the four times the list of crimes.

B. Joint criminal conduct between Defendant B and Defendant D

On January 5, 2011, Gangwon-do restricted the qualification for participation to submit a product supply declaration and technical support A/S declaration, and a type approval certificate to the tax accounting of the Gangwon-do office prior to the opening of the opening time, Gangwon-do announced the 'BC' tender of the basic amount of KRW 38,940,000, and only AD corporation independently participated in the tender and failed to participate in the bid, and then announced again on January 10, 201.

Accordingly, in the office of AD Co., Ltd. in the middle of January 201, 201, Defendant B discussed the bid amount at the request of Defendant D to participate in the said bidding, Defendant B received the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate from Defendant D, and submitted it to the office of Gangwon-do prior to opening the bidding with Defendant AD’s BE team leader.

Since then, Defendant B and Defendant D conspired as if the two companies were competing, Defendant D was awarded the bid price of KRW 38,141,700 on January 12, 201, and Defendant B’s bid price of KRW 37,771,80 on January 12, 201, and KRW 37,771,80 on January 10:42, 201. The bid price of AD Company was awarded in KRW 37,771,800 on January 12, 201.

As a result, Defendant B and Defendant D caused the fairness of bidding by a deceptive scheme in collusion.

C. Joint criminal conduct between Defendant B and Defendant G

In December 17, 2012, Gangwon-do has announced a bid for ‘BF' of KRW 279,680,000 on the basic amount of December 17, 2012. For the last ten years in which the main business office is located in Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, a business entity that has installed at least KRW 80,00,00 of a single project, or a film conference equipment or a weather hub, limited the eligibility for participation in the examination to be a business entity that has submitted a specification of equipment related to the existing operation equipment and system, in order to ensure interoperability (BMT).

Accordingly, Defendant B issued the same BM equipment specifications to Defendant G through the team leader of the Dai AD Co., Ltd. who requested the participation of Defendant G who operated AM to participate in the said bidding at around December 2012, Defendant B issued the same BM equipment specifications to Defendant G through the team leader of the Doi AD Co., Ltd., which was in the first floor of BD, Chuncheon City, BD in December 2012, and the bid amount to KRW 260,102,40 for AD Co., Ltd., and KRW 240,651,850 for AE Co., Ltd. and KRW 261,120,00 for each bid.

After December 24, 2012, and around 10:19, Defendant B submitted a bid price of AD Co., Ltd. in KRW 260,102,40, and KRW 240,651,850 on December 24, 2012, and KRW 240,651,850 on December 24, 2012. Defendant G submitted a bid price in KRW 261,120,00 on December 24, 2012. Defendant AD Co., Ltd was awarded a bid price in KRW 260,102,40.

As a result, Defendant B and Defendant G caused the fairness of bidding by a deceptive scheme in collusion.

D. Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct

(1) interference with bidding on March 29, 2013

Defendant A limited the qualification to participate in the bidding within 3 days after the contract was entered into on March 22, 2013 by issuing a product supply and an alcoholic support undertaking, and thereby confirming the 'BH' tender notice of the basic amount of KRW 273,790,000, and attempted to participate in the bidding in order to prevent the single bidding even though the two companies, such as AA and AB, are substantially operating, as the two companies are in competition with each other.

Accordingly, at the AA office located in AS complex around 08:5:19 on March 29, 2013, at around 08:5:19, the main food company AB was to be invested in KRW 232,447,000, and AA was to be invested in KRW 257,362,000 on the same day, and at around 09:0:45 on the same day, it was to be invested in KRW 257,362,00, and the AB was to be awarded a successful bid amount of KRW 257,362,00,00.

As a result, Defendant A has harmed the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

(2) interference with bidding on July 26, 2013

Defendant A, on July 22, 2013, when the location of the principal place of business of Chuncheon is not the technical research of the goods supplied as a Chuncheon-type business entity, limited the qualification to participate in the bidding to submit a certificate of goods supply and technical assistance from the manufacture. Defendant A, upon checking the bid notice of 49,964,00 won based on the basic amount of 49,964,000 won, had the intention to participate in the bidding in the same manner as the above (1).

Accordingly, Defendant A was awarded a successful bid amount of KRW 43,963,00 on July 26, 2013 at the above office of AA, at KRW 43,963,00, and at KRW 44,467,00 on the same day, Defendant A was awarded a successful bid amount of KRW 43,963,00.

As a result, Defendant A has harmed the fairness of bidding through fraudulent means.

E. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct

Defendant B, as an enterprise with the principal place of business on September 10, 2012, was located in Gangwon-do, had the BJ Committee decided to participate in the said two bidding under the name of the said two enterprises, by limiting the qualification to participate in the bidding within 10 days after the contract was entered into, as specified in the public notice and specifications, by limiting the qualification to submit a letter of obligation to supply water and to provide technical assistance to the procuring entity within 10 days after the contract was entered into with the procuring entity. Defendant B entered into a contract with Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. with the agency, and Defendant B could satisfy the above qualification for participation in the bidding. In order to prevent the participation of the said two enterprises in a single bidding with the fact that the said two enterprises actually operate the said two enterprises, as the two enterprises are the separate competitive enterprises.

Accordingly, Defendant B was awarded a successful bid amount of KRW 79,050,000 on September 13, 2012, at the office of AD Co., Ltd. with the first floor in Chuncheon City BD, around 11:16, 201; AD Co., Ltd. with the bid amount of KRW 79,050,000 on the same day; AE invested at KRW 80,750,000 on the bid amount of KRW 11:19 on the same day.

Accordingly, Defendant B was fair in bidding through fraudulent means.

2. Violation of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Support for Sales.

A. Defendant B

(1) A certificate of direct production of a closed-circuit television system dated August 27, 2013

Where a certificate of direct production verification of closed-circuit television systems (video monitoring devices) is issued, the aforementioned business entity shall obtain the results of electromagnetic compatibility and the certificate of registration of suitability for broadcasting and communications equipment (KC certification) from the video monitoring device directly produced by the relevant business entity, and it shall not be pretend that the parts are products directly produced on the production site by purchasing the parts, such as caps, which are distributed in the city, and by keeping them in the production site.

Nevertheless, on August 19, 2013, Defendant B filed an application for the issuance of a certificate of direct production with respect to video monitoring devices (www.Sp.go.r.) by accessing the public purchase information network site of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (www.mp.go.r.) at the office of AD Co., Ltd. located on the first floor in Chuncheon City, BD, and submitted the data necessary for the application for the confirmation of direct production, such as the certificate of registration of conformity with the Electromagnetic test results and the certificate of registration of conformity with the broadcasting and communication equipment of the National Radio Research Institute, which is not the video monitoring device directly produced by AD Co., Ltd.

On August 26, 2013, Defendant B was issued a certificate of direct production of closed-circuit television system (video monitoring device) by the president of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business around August 27, 2013, with a video monitoring device as a part of a video monitoring device produced in BN, which was delegated by the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business for the certification of direct production by the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business.

As a result, Defendant B obtained the confirmation of direct production by fraudulent or other illegal means.

(2) A certificate of direct production of a closed-circuit television system dated May 19, 2014

In order to obtain a certificate of direct production confirmation of ‘closed television system (security camera, video monitoring device)', it shall obtain the results of the Electromagnetic test and the certificate of registration of conformity with broadcasting and communications equipment (KC certification) from the relevant company, and it shall not be pretend that the parts are products directly produced by purchasing and keeping in the production site any parts (such as he/she has been distributed in the city) such as the he/she is also products.

Nevertheless, around May 7, 2014, Defendant B filed an application for the issuance of a certificate of direct production with respect to the public purchase information network site of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (www.mp.go.kr) by accessing the public purchase information network site of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (www) and filed an application for the issuance of a certificate of direct production with respect to the AD AD corporation's office located in Chuncheon City BO, and then submitted data necessary for the application for direct production verification, such as the Electromagnetic test report and the certificate of registration of conformity with broadcasting and communication equipment conformity (KC certification) of the Korea Radiological Institute of Radiological Research (hereinafter referred to as the "BP") produced in AD stocks company.

On May 14, 2014, Defendant B was issued a certificate of direct production verification of closed-circuit television system (security camera, video monitoring device) from the president of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business on May 5, 2014, to the BN, which was delegated by the Small and Medium Business Administration with the verification of direct production.

As a result, Defendant B obtained the confirmation of direct production by fraudulent or other illegal means.

(3) the verification of direct production of an automatic control team and a map control device;

In order to issue a certificate of direct production verification of "Automatic Control Team and Control System", "PLC equipment necessary for the certification of direct production" must be provided, and data necessary for the verification of direct production, such as photographs of the products directly produced by the relevant company, the drawings of the parts, the inspection body list, and the degree of work progress, shall be submitted.

Nevertheless, around July 30, 2014, Defendant B applied for the issuance of a certificate of direct production by accessing the public purchase information network site of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (www.mp.go.go.kr) at AD companies located in Switzerland, and submitted a tax invoice issued by AD Co., Ltd. as if the AD Co., Ltd purchased “PLC wear equipment” from AJ in 2,200,000 won, and the AD Co., Ltd. received from E Co., Ltd. a tax invoice issued as if the AD Co., Ltd. purchased “PLC wear equipment” in 2,200,000 won, and the AD Co., Ltd. received from E Co., Ltd. a certificate of direct production products at the time of issuance of a certificate of direct production, photographs, type drawings, inspection list, and process data, such as production, etc., and submitted them.

Since then, on July 30, 2014, Defendant B verified that “PLC equipment” is provided by the head of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business on August 5, 2014 to the BR affiliated with the fact-finding survey of the Korea Automatic Control Industry Cooperative, which was delegated by the Small and Medium Business Administration to certify direct production, and received a certificate of direct production confirmation from the president of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business around August 5, 2014.

As a result, Defendant B obtained the confirmation of direct production by fraudulent or other illegal means.

B. Defendant C.

Where a certificate of direct production verification of closed-circuit television systems (video monitoring devices) is issued, the aforementioned business entity shall obtain the results of electromagnetic compatibility and the certificate of registration of suitability for broadcasting and communications equipment (KC certification) from a video monitoring device directly produced by the relevant business entity, and it shall not be pretended to be a product manufactured directly on the production site by purchasing parts, such as a racks, which are distributed in the city, and keeping the parts in the production site.

Nevertheless, around August 30, 2013, Defendant C applied for the issuance of a certificate of direct production of television system image monitoring device (CS) by accessing the public purchase information network site of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (www. SP.go.kr) at the office of AG Co., Ltd. located in Switzerland-si, Chuncheon-si, and then submitted data necessary for the application for the confirmation of direct production of the television system image monitoring device (CS) at closed times, and then submitted the registration certificate (KC), etc. of registration of conformity with the results of examination and the broadcasting and communication equipment at the time of Electromagnetic by the National Radio Research Institute on Video Monitoring Devices produced in the "BM, other than the video monitoring market value produced in AG Co., Ltd. (S).

On September 3, 2013, the Defendant was issued a certificate of direct production of closed-circuit television system (video monitoring device) by the Chairperson of the Central Chairperson of Small and Medium Enterprises on September 6, 2013, with a view to assembling video monitoring device as a part of the video monitoring market in the 'BM' produced by the 'BM to BN affiliated with the Korea Monitoring Machinery and Industry Cooperatives, which is delegated with the certification of direct production by the Small and Medium Business Administration.

As a result, Defendant C obtained the confirmation of direct production by fraudulent or other illegal means.

C. Defendant E

Defendant E decided to register a new company in BT complex while operating a limited liability company, and established BW corporation as a representative of BU of the AJ on September 7, 2012.

In order to issue a certificate of direct production verification for "Automatic Control Team and Control System", "PLC equipment necessary for the verification of direct production" must be equipped, and data necessary for the verification of direct production, such as photographs, data drawings, examination body sets, and work process taken by the company concerned.

Nevertheless, on June 4, 2014, the Defendant issued an application for the confirmation of direct production at a limited company AJ office operating in Chuncheon City, the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business (www.mp.go.go.kr) with access to the public purchase information network site of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business and submitted data necessary for the application for the confirmation of direct production, such as the automatic control team and map control device, around June 14, 2013.

On June 5, 2014, Defendant E, who was delegated by the Small and Medium Business Administration to certify direct production, had the "PLC equipment" of the AJ on the ground of the fact-finding survey belonging to the Korea Automatic Control Industry Cooperatives, and verified it. On June 18, 2014, Defendant E received a certificate of direct production verification from the president of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business and Small and Medium Business.

As a result, Defendant E obtained the confirmation of direct production by fraud or other improper means.

3. Information and communications construction business violation.

No information and communications engineer shall lend his/her career pocketbook to another person, and no person shall use another person's career pocketbook by lending it.

(a) Lending Defendant I’s career pocketbook;

Defendant H introduced Defendant B, at around March 2009, who was registered as a special class technician of information and communications technology by introducing or requesting a person with a special class technician of information and communications technology qualification certificate, and thereafter, Defendant H introduced Defendant B, who was registered as a special class technician of AD corporation, and around that time, paid KRW 200,000 per month between Defendant I and Defendant I as a fee for the career pocketbook loan of Defendant 1.

Accordingly, between March 12, 2009 and December 16, 2014, Defendant H lent the class 2 career pocket book of Defendant 1’s non-ray facility engineer from Defendant 1 as a technician of the company, and Defendant H lent the above career pocket book to Defendant H as above.

As a result, Defendant H used another person’s career pocketbook, and Defendant 1 lent his career pocketbook to another person at sight.

(b) Lending the BZ career pocket books;

(1) Defendant B

Defendant B shall pay 300,000 won per month to the BZ, and he thought that he borrowed the second degree of 2nd compacter’s electrical equipment engineer in the BZ to use it.

Accordingly, from March 1, 201 to April 30, 201, Defendant B borrowed a class 2 career pocketbook of the cable equipment engineer from B to the company AE engineer of the stock company.

Accordingly, Defendant B borrowed another person’s career pocketbook and used it.

(2) Defendant F

Defendant F introduced BZ from the end of April 201, and around that time, paid KRW 300,000 per month in terms of loan fees for the career pocketbook in relation to BZ.

Accordingly, from May 1, 201 to November 201, Defendant F registered Defendant F as a technician of AL by lending a class 2 career pocketbook of cable equipment engineer from B to Chuncheon CA and AL office of 22, and from B.

Accordingly, Defendant F was used by lending another person’s career pocketbook.

C. Lending Defendant J’s career pocket books

On March 2014, Defendant B received a career pocketbook borrowed from Defendant J and paid Defendant J money as a rental fee to Defendant J (1).

Accordingly, Defendant B borrowed Defendant J’s communication device technician and information and communication technician (high class) career pocket book from Defendant J to Defendant J, and registered Defendant J as AE’s technician, and Defendant J borrowed the above career pocket book to Defendant B, as above, from April 7, 2014 to December 24, 2014.

Accordingly, Defendant B used another person’s career pocketbook by lending it, and Defendant J lent his career pocketbook to other sight.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant H and I’s respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G and J

1. Partial statement of CB of the fourth trial record;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a part of the prosecution against the defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and J;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by each prosecution againstCC;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement concerning CDs, CE, CG, AW, CH, CI,J, BN, BN, CK, CL, CM, CN, CN, and CB (a replaced part with Defendant F);

1. Notice of the designated tender (2.15.12.2.2, No. 15.6), BG 1, BG 7, BG 1, BG 200, BG 1, BG 800, BG 2000, BG 1400, BG 2000, BG 1400, BG 1400, BG 5000, BG 16100, BV 16, BG 5000, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 25, 25, 25, 25, 16, 16, 36, 16, 16, 16, 36, 16, 16, 36, 16, 36, 16, 16, 36, 36, 36, 14, and 15, 1,2,000.

1. AD Factory Registration No. 44, A. 47 through 50, A. 2, A. 4, B-1, B-1, B-4, A-2, A-2, and C-1, B-1, B-4, A-2, and C-1, B-4, A-2, and B-4, A-2, and C-1, A-2, and B-4, A-2, and C-1, and C-2, and C-2, each of the results of the results of the investigation on actual condition of products (C-1, B-4, B-4, and C-1, B-4, A-2, and C-1, and C-2, and C-2, and C-2, each of the data on the actual condition quo survey (C-1, 194, 195, 198, 204, 207, 210, D-2, and C-1, respectively.

1. Employees' telephone number (No. 75), business registration certificate and registration pocket book, information and communications business registration certificate and registration pocket book, No. 76), current status of technicians (career pocket book, No. 77), one copy of the No. 87, one copy of each seal secured in the search and seizure process (No. 91), one copy of each seal secured in the search and seizure process (No. 91), one copy of the total number of xlsx file output (No. 93), one copy of the APJ (No. 116), six (No. 16), six (No. 16), six (No. 2, 2014 xlsx file withdrawal (No. 117), one hundred and sixty (No. 16), six (No. 16), six (No. 2, one hundred and sixty (No. 118, one14) and one-six (No. 14, one10) one-six (No.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Articles 315 and 313 of the Criminal Act (Article 30 of the Criminal Act is added to the crime of paragraph (1) at the time of sale), and choice of imprisonment

(b) Defendant B: Articles 315 and 313 of the Criminal Act (in the case of interference with bidding, Article 30 of the Criminal Act for each crime, Article 1-A, and Article 30 of the Judgment); Articles 35(2) and 11(2)1 of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Market Products (which has obtained the certification of direct production by falsity) of the Criminal Act; Articles 75 subparag. 5 and 40(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products; Articles 75 subparag. 5 and 40(2) of

(c) Defendant C and E: Articles 315, 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with bidding), Articles 35(2) and 11(2)1 (a) of the Act on Promotion of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and Support for Development of Market Markets) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment

D. Defendant D: Articles 315 and 313 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment

(e) Defendant F: Articles 315, 313, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 75 subparag. 5 and 40(2) of the Information and Communication Work Business Act; Articles 75 subparag. 5 and 40(2) of the Information and Communication Work Business Act; the choice of imprisonment

F. Defendant G: Articles 315 and 313 of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

G. Defendant H, I, and J: Article 75 Subparag. 5 and Article 40(2) of the Information and Communication Work Business Act; selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F: former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant H, I, and J: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant A and B: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant H, I, and J: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Interference with Bidding at General Auction)

[Special Person] Where a person leads or directs a crime, he/she commits a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

(b) Determination of sentence;

It is a factor of sentencing favorable to the defendant that there is no particular criminal record, in addition to the criminal record of a fine due to a crime committed by the defendant. However, the interference with bidding is a factor of sentencing that is favorable to the defendant, by using unlawful means, thereby undermining the price-fixing or lawful and fair competition by free competition. Therefore, even in order to realize the economic freedom and creative initiative of individuals and enterprises, it is essential to punish the defendant corresponding to the act. Therefore, the defendant led the AV council with co-defendant B, and the fact that the defendant led and carried out the crime listed in paragraph (a) of the crime in the

In addition, the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(1) Group 1 (Interference with Tender)

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Interference with General Auction and Bidding)

[Special Person] Where a person leads or directs a crime, he/she commits a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

(2) Application of multiple crime processing standards

Since each crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Purchase of Products of Small and Medium Enterprises and Support for Sales, each crime of special injury by violation of the Information and Communications Construction Business Act and the crime of interference with the above bidding are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines should be followed only by the lower limit of the sentencing range of the recommended sentences

(b) Determination of sentence;

It is an element of sentencing in favor of the Defendant that there is no particular criminal record, in addition to the criminal record of a fine due to a crime committed by the Defendant. However, bidding interference is likely to undermine a price-fixing or lawful and fair competition by using unlawful means, and thus it is essential to punish the Defendant corresponding to that act even in order to realize the economic freedom and creative initiative of individuals and enterprises. Therefore, the Defendant, who led the Co-Defendant AV council with Co-Defendant A, led the Defendant to form AV council, and the fact that the Defendant led and carried out the crime listed in paragraph (a) of the same Article is an element of

In addition, the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the recommended sentencing criteria.

3. Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G

In full view of the motive and content of each of the above Defendants, degree of participation, and all other circumstances, including the Defendants’ annual order, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as per Disposition within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines.

4. Defendant H, Defendant I, and Defendant J

Since the above Defendants were punished by a fine, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply.

In full view of the motive and contents of the above Defendants’ respective crimes, and other circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence as per Disposition shall be determined.

U.S.

1) The indictment is written in KRW 1,500,000 per month, but the amount paid as a consideration for the lending of ordinary career books is 200,000.

It is difficult to regard the whole amount as a consideration for the lending of career pocket books in light of the fact that it causes KRW 30,000 or KRW

2) The former Act on the Encouragement of Purchase of Small and Medium Enterprise Products and the Development of Market Support (Act No. 11690, Mar. 18, 2014) as applicable provisions of the indictment

Although Articles 35(1)2 and 11(2)1 of the Act are also stated, the Act after the crime is committed.

Where a punishment is minor due to a change (a punishment of not more than three years or a fine not exceeding ten million won shall be imposed for not more than one year;

Since it constitutes a calendar or a fine not exceeding KRW 10 million, it is as stated in Section 1(2) of the Criminal Act, so that the new law shall be applied in accordance with Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act as to Defendant C.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.