(a) Interference with an act of collusion without receiving any money or valuables and a bidding (affirmative);

(b) Interference with bidding where there was collusion with some bidders, but it did not constitute collusion with other bidders (negative)

A. In a case where persons who manipulate the highest bidder or participate in the competition in collusion with each other to make a certain person who is a successful bidder at a certain price below or above, the so-called collusion under which other persons agree not to make a successful bidder at a certain price is likely to impair the interests of the executor in the bid price, but rather make the successful bidder at the bid price as if the actual single bid was the competitive bidder, it would be likely to impair the fairness of the first bidding regardless of the receipt of money and valuables.

B. Even if there is collusion and the subsequent collusion was received, if there is the same result as free competition without impairing the interests of the bidder, there is no risk of undermining the fairness of the bidding. Among five companies of (a), (b), (a), (b), (f) and (f) participating in the bidding of this case, if the defendant, who is the former agent of the company A, was involved in the bidding of this case, he is only the company (B) and (b) participating in the bidding of this case, and his bid price is more than the estimated price of bidding because there is no collusion with the company (B), and the defendant also responded to the price higher than the initially planned price of the bidding of the company (B) resulting in a lack of definite answer by the company (B) and (c) participating in the bidding of this case (B) participating in the bidding of this case, but (B) participating in the bidding of this case, (i) participating in the bidding of this case, and (ii) participating in the bidding of this case, even if the company did not accept it formally, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's participation in the bidding of this constitutes a single competition.

(b)Article 315 of the Criminal Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Do519 delivered on April 30, 1971

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Gyeong-sik

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No8348 delivered on February 10, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's act of selling 35,475 square meters of the above operation price at 00,000 won of the above operation price at 50,000 won of the above operation price was not conducted by the non-indicted 50,000 won of the above operation price at 1978,00 won of the above operation price, and the non-indicted 1,50,000 won of the above operation price was not conducted by the non-indicted 50,000 won of the above operation price at 10,000 won of the above operation price, and the non-indicted 2,000 won of the above operation price was not conducted by the non-indicted 1,50,000 won of the above operation price at 10,000 won of the above operation price, and the non-indicted 1,000 won of the above operation price was not conducted by the non-indicted 1,000 won of the above operation price.

I think it would be dangerous that, even if a person who manipulates the highest bidder or participates in the bidding in collusion with one another to make a certain person participate in the bidding at a certain price below or above as a successful bidder, if the other person concludes that the bidding price would be successful by pretending that the bidder's interest is not undermined in the bidding price, it would hinder the fair bidding regardless of the receipt of money and valuables (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do519, Apr. 30, 197). However, even if there is collusion and the price was received, if the bidding result in the free competition without impairing the interests of the bidder, it would not be prejudicial to the fair bidding if the bidding price was reached among five enterprisers participating in the bidding of this case, as determined by the court below, because it was merely between the operation of the tender in the name of the new entertainment project and the bid, and it would be difficult to see that the remaining price of the bidding price was the same as the price of the bidding of the defendant's own bid at a more reasonable price than the price of the first bidding.

In addition, in the bidding of this case, the bidding amount up to the limit of the external trade amount for one year prior to the bidding of each participant is likely to be competitive, and the external shape of the new entertainment business (1.1 billion won) that borrowed the name of the above operation pen was the highest, and thus, the defendant was not able to participate in the competition with him. However, the external trade amount of the above old decoration is much more than 1.5 billion won in the defendant's bid price, but the external trade amount of the above old decoration is more than 24.5 billion won in the defendant's bid price. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a risk of undermining the fairness of the old decoration because it is possible to conduct the competition up to the scope, and it is difficult to completely exclude the competition of the old decoration by itself,

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal, on the ground that the court below erred in legal evaluation or erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the obstruction of bidding, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)