(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.2.6. 선고 2013고합998 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Defendant

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Imposition of Judgment

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.2.6. 선고 2013고합998 판결

가.건설산업기본법위반(피고인A,피고인B,피고인C,피고인D,피고인E,피고인F,피고인G,피고인H,피고인I,피고인J,피고인K,피고인L,피고인M,피고인N,피고인0,피고인P,피고인Q,피고인R,피고인S,피고인T,피고인U에대한각예비적죄명입찰방해)나,입찰방해

Cases

2013Gohap98 A. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant)

U.S. C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant

G, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant K,

Defendant L, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant 0, Defendant 0

Jin P, Defendant Q, Defendant R, Defendant S, and Defendant

1. The tender for each preliminary offense against T and U.S.

Note)

(b) bid interference;

Defendant

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.(a) C.

4.(a)D

5.(a) E

6.(a)F

7.(a) G

8.(a) H

9.(a)1

10.(a) J

11.(a) K

12.(a) L.

13.(a) M

14.(a)N

15.(a)0

16.(a)P

17.A. Q.

18.(a) R

19.1.S

20.(a) T:

21.A. U.S.

2.(a)(b)(i) V

23.A. Written Company

24.(a) X corporation

25.A.Y

26.(a)Z Co., Ltd.

27.(a) AA

28.(a) ABS

29.(a) AC

30.(a) AD Co.

31.(a) AE Company

32. (a) AF Stock Company;

3.(a) AG Co., Ltd.

Prosecutor

Emotional video (prosecutions), video, Kim Jong-young, and Scoding (at least two trials)

Defense Counsel

Attorney H, AI, AJ, AK (Defendant A, B, C, D, W Co., Ltd.)

(n)

Attorney L, AM, andN (for the defendant B)

Attorney AO, AL, AM, AP (for the defendant C)

AP Law Firm, AR, AS, ATS, AU, AV (Defendant E, F, G);

X For the Company :

AX, AY, AZ, BA (Defendant E, F, and G)

For purposes of

Attorney BB, BC, BD, BE, BF (Defendant H, I, and Y, Inc.)

Attorney BG, BH, and BI (Defendant H)

Attorney J, BK (Defendant J and K)

Attorney BL, BM (for defendant J)

Law Firm BN, Attorneys BO, BP, Q, BR, and BS (Defendant J)

(n)

Law Firm BT, Attorneys BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, Z, CA, CB (P)

For Zin K and Z corporation:

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11466 decided May 1, 201

Law Firm CE Law Firm, CF, CG, CH, CI, CJ (Defendant L, M, State)

For Food Company AA

CK Law Firm, Attorney CL, CM, CN, CO, CP, C Q, and CR (Defendant)

L, M)

Attorney CS, CT, CU, B, CV (Defendant N,O, AB)

(n)

Attorney AO (for the defendant N)

Attorneys CW, CX, CY, and CZ (for Defendant P, Q, and AC)

Attorney DA, DB (for Defendant P)

Attorney DC, BB, D, D, DE (for Defendant R, S, and AD Company)

Attorney DF (for the defendant T)

Law Firm DG, Attorneys DH, DI, DJ, DK, DL (Defendant T, AE State)

For the corporation:

Attorney DM, DN, and DO (for defendant U and F corporation)

Attorney DP, DP, Q, and DDR (for Defendant V and AG Co., Ltd.)

Imposition of Judgment

February 6, 2014

Text

Defendant C, Defendant G, Defendant L, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant M, and Defendant N are punished by imprisonment for one year and six months, with prison labor for each of the two yearss of imprisonment; Defendant J and Defendant H are punished by imprisonment for each of the following three years of imprisonment; Defendant A, Defendant P, Defendant P, Defendant Q, Defendant R, Defendant S; Defendant T, Defendant U, and Defendant VI with prison labor for eight months of imprisonment for each of the aforesaid imprisonment; Defendant T, Defendant X, Defendant X, Defendant Y, Defendant AA, Defendant AB, and Defendant AD with a fine of KRW 75 million, each of the fines of KRW 75 million.

In the event that Defendant T, U, and VI fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, with respect to Defendant G, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant M, Defendant M, Defendant J, Defendant J, and Defendant R for three years, respectively, and with respect to Defendant A, Defendant P, Defendant P, Defendant Q, Defendant R, Defendant R, and Defendant N for one year.

Defendant T, U, V, Defendant X, Defendant X, Defendant Y, Defendant Z, Defendant AA, Defendant AB, Defendant AC, Defendant AD, Defendant AE, Defendant AF, Defendant AF, and Defendant AG are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Reasons

Criminal facts

[Status and Duties of the Defendant]

Defendant A was working as the representative director of W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”) from March 18, 2009 to May 31, 201, and was responsible for overall management of the company including affairs such as orders and execution of domestic and overseas construction.

Defendant B is a person who holds office as the head of W’s Civil and Environmental Project Headquarters from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 and has overall control over all the affairs related to civil and environmental projects, including the formulation and implementation of W’s plans to participate in tendering for civil and environmental works, and W’s progress and field management.

Defendant C is a person who is working as the chairperson of the consortium comprised of so-called BIG 5 construction companies, such as W, Y(hereinafter referred to as "Y"), Z(hereinafter referred to as "Z"), X(hereinafter referred to as "X"), and AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AA"), in order to promote the "DS Transfer Lease" that is aiming at enabling logistics by linking NP and NP from January 2008 to the end of May 2009, and is a person who is working as the chairperson of the Construction Consultative Council for DT financial projects from January 2009 to May 209.

Defendant D is a person who holds office as the head of the W Domestic Business Headquarters from March 23, 2009 to December 31, 2009 and exercises overall control over the collection of bid information, preparation for bidding, conclusion of a contract for construction, company's external affairs, etc., and is a person who takes overall charge of all affairs related to public works, such as the formulation and execution of plans for participation in bidding of civil engineering works, process of works ordered by W and field management, etc., while working as the head of the W Civil Works Environment Headquarters from January 1, 201 to September 201.

Defendant E is a person who holds office as the director of X Civil Engineering Project from 2007 to December 2, 2009 and has overall control over all affairs related to civil engineering projects, such as the formulation and implementation of participation plans for civil engineering works, X-led construction processes, field management, etc.

Defendant F is a person who has served as a general manager in the domestic civil engineering project division within the X headquarters from January 2009 to December 2009, and as a general manager in the south-west area of the domestic headquarters from September 2009 to December 2009, and is in charge of the affairs related to the domestic civil engineering project, such as the formulation and execution of plans for participation in bidding of domestic civil engineering works, the management of awarded construction processes and site, the collection of bid information, the preparation of bid preparation, etc., while serving as the head of the domestic civil engineering project from January 201 to December 2009, respectively, takes charge of domestic and foreign civil engineering projects, and in particular, takes charge of the affairs related to DT projects and the construction works ordered by the Water Resources Corporation, organized on January 2009.

Defendant G is an executive officer of X Development Project Headquarters, who works as a member of the W consortium and DT Finance Council on behalf of X from January 2008 to May 2009.

Defendant H was working as a representative director from December 1, 2007 to July 15, 2013, and was responsible for overall management of the company including affairs such as orders and execution of domestic and overseas construction works.

Defendant I is a person who is employed as the head of the Public Works Project Headquarters from November 2007 to December 2, 2009 and has overall control over all affairs related to civil engineering projects, such as the formulation and implementation of a bid plan for civil engineering works, the process of construction awarded by Y, and field management.

Defendant J is a person who is employed as the head of the Civil Works Headquarters from January 2, 2007 to December 2, 201 and has overall control over all affairs related to civil engineering projects, such as the formulation and implementation of a plan to participate in tendering for civil engineering works, the progress of works awarded by the Z, and field management.

Defendant K shall be the Standing Director of the Zju Business Office from January 2004, and the number of Z from January 2008 to December 2012, 2010

It is a person who is in charge of collection of bid information, preparation of bid, conclusion of contract for construction, and affairs related to the external affairs of the company while in office as a regular manager.

From January 1, 2009 to January 31, 2012, Defendant L served as the head of the AA civil engineering project headquarters and took overall charge of all affairs related to civil engineering projects, such as the formulation and implementation of plans to participate in bidding of civil engineering works, the process of construction works ordered by AA, and the field management, and on February 15, 2008, Defendant L was prosecuted by the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office for the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on February 15, 2008, and was not detained for the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry at the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office on January 14, 2010, and the grace period has expired on January 14, 2012.

Defendant M serves as the head of the AA domestic headquarters from January 2006 to December 2010 and takes charge of the collection of bid information, preparation for bidding and conclusion of a contract for construction, and affairs related to the external affairs of the company.

From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, Defendant N is a person who has overall control over all affairs related to civil engineering projects, such as the formulation and execution of a participation plan for civil engineering works as the head of the headquarters for civil engineering business (hereinafter referred to as “AB”), the process of construction ordered by AB, and field management, and the chairperson of the operation committee of the DS Transfer AB consortium from January 1, 2008 to January 2009, and the operator of the Construction Consultative Council on DT Financial Projects from January 2009 to May 2009.

From January 1, 2008, Defendant 0 was employed as the head of the domestic headquarters of AB from January 1, 2008 to now and was in general control of the collection of bid information, preparation for bidding and conclusion of construction contracts, and affairs related to the external affairs of the company.

The defendant P is a person who holds office as the head of the civil engineering environment headquarters of the corporation AC (hereinafter referred to as the "AC") from March 2007 to February 201 and has overall control over all the affairs related to civil engineering projects, including the formulation and implementation of a bid plan for civil engineering works, the process of works ordered by AC, and the field management.

Defendant Q served as a group of AC’s headquarters for civil engineering and environment projects from March 2, 2009 to March 1, 2010 and takes charge of the collection of bid information, preparation for bidding and conclusion of a contract for construction, and affairs related to the company’s external affairs.

Defendant R is a person who holds office as the head of the civil engineering project headquarters from February 2, 2009 to April 2012 and has overall control over all affairs related to civil engineering projects, such as the formulation and implementation of a bid plan for civil engineering works, progress of works awarded by AD, and field management.

From January 2009 to December 201, 201, Defendant S is a person in charge of affairs, such as the formulation and execution of a plan to participate in civil engineering works, while working as an executive of AD Civil Engineering Project Headquarters as an executive in charge of civil engineering design team and civil engineering work team.

From January 2004 to December 2012, 2010, Defendant T is the head of the civil engineering business team of the construction project division of AE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AE”), who has been in charge of preparation for tendering such as design of DU tools and construction works in which AE participated.

From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012, U is a person who is in charge of collection of bid information, preparation of bid and conclusion of construction contracts, and affairs related to the company's external affairs while working as a managing director of the strategic order team of a corporation AF (hereinafter referred to as "AF").

Defendant V is a person in charge of the collection of bid information, preparation of bid and conclusion of a contract for construction, and affairs related to the company's external affairs while working as the executive secretary of the business headquarters from February 2, 2009 to August 2010.

Defendant W, Defendant X, Defendant X, Defendant Y, Defendant Z, Defendant AB, Defendant AC, Defendant AD, Defendant AE, Defendant AF, and Defendant AG are corporations for the purpose of construction business, respectively.

1. DT beams;

【Basic Facts】

Construction companies of so-called BIG 5, such as W, X, Y, Z, and AA, constitute a consortium (hereinafter referred to as "W consortium") on January 208, 208. On February 2008, W W was absorbing a consortium comprised of nine construction companies, such as DV, and started the review of DS Transfer Project Plan, such as business feasibility.

AB, separate from W, constituted a consortium for the promotion of DSS-transfer projects, separately from W, etc. 5 companies and W. AB, after the plan for the build-transfer-lease projects was blanked and decided by the Balanced National Development Committee on December 2008, followed by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ordering "DT master plan" service to the Construction Technology Research Institute, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs officially promoted the DT financial project, it formed six "six Steering Committee on January 2, 2009" for the purpose of excluding mutual competition at the time of ordering the fiscal project. From around that time until May 2009, the AC, AD, DW Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DW"), and AF et al. conducted construction companies that had formed AB and a consortium with AB from the past AB until May 209, and formed a consultative body on each construction project through 19 construction companies' meetings on April 209.

[Distribution of Tools for Bidding]

On April 27, 2009, the 6th Steering Committee composed of officers and employees of W, X, Y, Z, ZA, and AB agreed that the 6th meeting of the Government for the above 16th project including DY(DZ), which was announced through DT leading projects on February 2009, will not be bid for each of the above 6 construction sections, and that the 6th meeting will not be bid for each of the construction sections, and that the 6th meeting will not be bid for each of the construction sections after consultation with the 6th meeting of the Seoul Metropolitan Government with the design score and price score score according to the DT project tender, and that the 6th meeting of the 6th meeting will be divided to the 6th meeting of the construction sections and the 6th meeting of the construction sections, which constitutes the 6th meeting of the construction sections and the 26th meeting of the construction sections in Seoul.

A. Crimes by W-related Defendants

1) The Defendants A, B, C, and C ordered construction cost of KRW 288,119,00,000 on September 14, 2009 at the Water Resources Corporation to order the construction cost of KRW 288,119,00,00, and the tender was finished on September 14, 2009. Defendant C, as above, sold a construction section to six companies around April 2009 at first of June 2009; Defendant C consulted with ABN around June 9, 2009; Defendant D, through EZ, an employee of the domestic headquarters, agreed to obtain bid price of KRW 200,00 in order to obtain a fair bid price of KRW 70,00,00, more than 100,000, more than 200,000, more than 200,000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200.

B) Defendant W

The Defendant, as the representative of the Defendant, called A, B, C, D, etc., called the Defendant’s bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding by deceptive scheme or other means.

(ii) EEC tools (ED) works;

A) The Defendants A, B, C, and D were ordered by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of KRW 368,562,00,000 on the estimated construction cost at the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the bidding was finished on September 15, 2009. Defendant C, around April 2009, distributed a construction section at the six operating committees as above, and as a result, consulted on AB’s N and R around June 2009, and Defendant D conspired with the FA and W’s bidding price at KRW 300,00 for the purpose of interfering with the bid price at KRW 300,300,300, 300, 3000, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 30, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300.

B) Defendant W

The Defendant, as set forth in Section A, B, C, and D, a representative of the Defendant, participated in the bidding at a price determined in advance by bidders in competitive bidding with intent to obtain unfair profits or to interfere with fair price determination, and at the same time interfered with other constructors' bidding activities by deceptive scheme or other means.

3) EG tools (EH) construction

A) The Defendants A, B, C, and C ordered construction cost of KRW 200,591,00,000 on September 9, 2009 at the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and ordered construction cost of KRW 200,59,000, and the tender was finished on September 9, 2009. Defendant C distributed construction cost to six companies around April 2009, and as a result, Defendant C consulted with X’s G around early June 2009, and Defendant D interfered with the bid price of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

B) Defendant W

The Defendant, as set forth in Section A, B, C, and D, a representative of the Defendant, bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obstructing the Defendant’s fair price determination regarding the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive means or other means.

(iv) EX tools (EY) works;

A) The Defendants A, B, C, and C ordered construction cost of KRW 227,677,00,000 on September 15, 2009 at the Busan Regional Land Management Office, and completed the tender on September 15, 2009, Defendant C conspired with AD’s S and S and S and S and as a result, around June 2009 after distributing the construction section at the six management committee around April 2009. Defendant D conspired with the FC and AD’s bid price of KRW 227,67,00,00 on June 9, 209 through EZ, a staff member of the Korea Business Headquarters, to receive a successful bid; Defendant A and B conspired with Defendant C and D’s bid price of KRW 200, 200, 205, 2005, 200, 205, 2005, 200, 2005, 200, 2005, 2005, 2000.

B) Defendant W

5) ET tools (EU) construction

A) The Defendants A, B, C, and D were ordered by the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office for construction cost of KRW 180,00,000,000 for the estimated construction cost, and the tender was finished on September 9, 2009. The Defendants C, around April 2009, sold construction sections at the six operating committees as above, consulted on AB’s N and R & R tender at the beginning of June 2009, and as a result, Defendant D conspired with the FA and AB’s bid price of KRW 180,00,00,000 for the purpose of interfering with AB’s bid price of KRW 10,00,000,00 for the purpose of interfering with AB’s bid price of KRW 10,000,00,000 for the purpose of interfering with AB’s bid process, and at the same time, Defendant A and Defendant B conspired with other bidding price of KRW 100,00,000 for the purpose of complying with the tender price of KRW 160.

B) Defendant W

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, B, C, D, etc., the representative of the Defendant, conducted competitive bidding with intent to obstruct a fair price determination in connection with the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ tendering activities by means of deceptive scheme or other means.

B. Crimes committed by X-related Defendants

(i) DY tools (Z) construction;

A) Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G: (a) placed an order for construction cost of KRW 134,40,000,000 at the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to enter into a bid on April 21, 2009; and (b) held a construction section distribution consultation at the six management committees around February through April 4, 2009; (c) thereafter, Defendant G agreed on the construction section distribution at the six management committees; and (d) at the same time, Defendant E and Defendant F conspired with Defendant G to enter into a bid for a bid price of KRW 120,624,90,00,00 in order by receiving a report from Defendant G, etc. on the above bidding process by approving it; and (e) submitted a bid price of KRW 120,00,00,00 in a bid price of KRW 127,00,00 in a bid price of Y; and (e) fabricated the bid price of KRW 70,700.

B) Defendant X

The Defendant, like the foregoing paragraph (a) where E, F, G, etc., the Defendant’s employee, was engaged in competitive bidding at a price determined in advance by each other with intent to obstruct a fair price determination regarding the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ tendering activities by deceptive scheme

(ii) ECE tools (EF) projects;

A) Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G: (a) placed an order for construction cost of KRW 315,60,000,000 on September 9, 2009 at the Seoul Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; and (b) concluded a tender on September 9, 2009; (c) around April 2009, Defendant G consulted with the Steering Committee on the distribution of construction sections at six companies; (d) on June 9, 2009 through FD, Defendant E and Defendant F agreed on the bid price of KRW Y to obtain bid price and X; (d) Defendant E and Defendant F conspired with each other by giving approval by receiving a report from Defendant G, etc. on the above bidding process by obtaining a lower price than X; (e) offered a design score at a lower price of KRW 298,210,000,00; and (e) offered a fair bid price of KRW 96,000,00,000; and (e) offered a different competitive bid price of KRW 290.

B) Defendant X

The Defendant, like the foregoing paragraph (a) where E, F, G, etc., the Defendant’s employees, made a bid at a price calculated in advance between bidders in competitive bidding with intent to obtain unfair profits or to interfere with fair price determination, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive means or other means.

(iii) EN tools (EO) construction;

A) Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G were ordered by the Korea Water Resources Corporation for construction cost of KRW 320,792,00,000 on September 14, 2009 and the tender was finished on September 14, 2009. Defendant G consulted with the Steering Committee on the allotment of construction sections around April 2009, and around June 9, 2009 through FB of the Korea Business Headquarters, Defendant E and Defendant F conspired with Defendant E and Defendant F submitted a plan to get lower than AA to obtain a successful bid price, thereby interfering with the fair bid price of KRW 303,006,000,000 on the tender price of the AA and manipulating the bid price of KRW 300,00,00 on the tender price of KRW 300,00,00 on the tender price of the 200,000.

B) Defendant X

The Defendant, as the Defendant’s employees, called E, F, G, etc., bid at a price calculated in advance between bidders for the purpose of interfering with a fair price determination regarding the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding by deceptive means or other means.

4) EG tools (EH) construction

A) While Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ordered construction cost of KRW 200,591,000,000 on September 9, 2009 and finished tender at the Busan Regional Land Management Office, Defendant G consulted with the Steering Committee on the allotment of construction sections at six companies around April 2009, following the consultation on the allotment of construction sections at the National Committee on June 9, 2009 through FB at the Korea Business Headquarters FB around June 2009. Defendant E and Defendant F conspired with the aforementioned bidding process by obtaining a report from Defendant G, etc. to approve it, and submitted a design score lower than X, and conspired with W to the bid price of KRW 19,58,00,00 for a bid price of KRW 198,40,00,00 for a fair bid price of KRW 100,300,000, or a fair bid price of KRW 300,000.

B) Defendant X

C. Crimes committed by Defendants related to Y

(i) DY tools (Z) construction;

A) Defendant H and Defendants 1 ordered construction estimates of KRW 134,400,000,00 to the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and conspired to acquire construction estimates of KRW 134,40,000,00,00, and completed the tender on April 21, 2009 through FF, an executive officer of the Civil Work Headquarters, at the management committee of six companies: (a) distributed construction sections from February 2 to February 4, 2009; (b) made it possible for X FD, AB0 to obtain successful bid; and (c) made it possible for constructors to acquire construction estimates of KRW 134,40,00; and (d) conspired to obtain reports through FG, etc.; and (e) made them enter into a bid at a lower price of KRW 10,00,00,000 for the purpose of interfering with the tender price of KRW 20,709,79,209,70,700.

B) Defendant Y

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, called H and employee I, etc., who is the representative of the Defendant, bid at a manipulated price in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination. At the same time, the Defendant interfered with the tender of other constructors by deceptive means or other means.

(ii) ECE tools (EF) projects;

A) Defendant H and Defendant I ordered construction estimates of KRW 315,600,000,00 to the Seoul Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and finished tender on September 9, 2009, through FF, an executive officer of the Civil Work Headquarters, around April 2009, allocated construction sections to six companies, and around June 9, 2009, through FE, which is an executive officer of the domestic business headquarters, set the price of X’s OFD and X’s bid to receive the successful bid. At the same time, Defendant I conspired with the above bidding process by obtaining a report through FG, etc., from the head of the Y’s domestic business headquarters, and subsequently conspired to obtain a design score to obtain a lower price than X, with the intention of interfering with the bid price of KRW 298,100,200,000 by submitting a design score to the bid price of KRW 298,200,70,000.

B) Defendant Y

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, called H and employee I, etc., who is the representative of the Defendant, conducted competitive bidding with intent to obstruct a fair price determination in connection with the Defendant’s business at a price determined in advance by the bidders, and obstructed other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive means or other means.

3) EI to (EJ) projects;

A) Defendant H and Defendant I ordered construction estimates of KRW 384,715,000,00 to the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on September 15, 2009. On or around April 2009, through FF, an officer of the Civil Work Headquarters, distributed construction sections at the six management committees as above, and around June 9, 2009, the FH, who is an employee of the domestic business headquarters, had the M and Y receive the successful bid price at the rate of 384,715,00,00,000. At the same time, the Defendants conspired with the method of obtaining a report from the head of the Y’s domestic business headquarters to approve it through FG, etc., and conspired with AA to obtain a design score lower than Y at a lower price of KRW 38,00,000,000, more than 300,007, more than 300,000.

B) Defendant Y

4) EV tools (EW) construction

A) Defendant H and Defendant I ordered construction estimates of KRW 196,673,00,00,00 to the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 9, 2009, through FF, an executive officer of the Civil Work Headquarters, around April 2009, allocated construction sections at the 6th Steering Committee as above, and around June 9, 2009, the FFI of AC and AC were able to receive the successful bid through FH, a staff member of the Domestic Business Headquarters, at the same time, at the rate of 178,70,700,740,700,700,000 won or more, and subsequently conspired with the above bid process by obtaining a report through FG, etc., from the head of the National Headquarters of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and thereby interfering with the bid price of AC with the bid price of KRW 178,700,700,50,000.

B) Defendant Y

The Defendant, as the representative of the Defendant, H and employee I, etc., conducted competitive bidding with intent to obstruct a fair price determination in connection with the Defendant’s business as set forth in the foregoing A at a price determined in advance by the bidders, and obstructed other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive means or other means.

D. Crimes committed by Z-related Defendants

1) DU tools (EK) construction

A) Defendant J and the Defendants agreed that the Seoul Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ordered construction cost of KRW 344,300,000,000 on September 9, 2009 and completed the tender on September 9, 2009, Defendant K participated in AE’s FK and other construction works to be ordered in the future through FJ as a joint supplier, instead of taking part in AE as a joint supplier, Defendant J agreed that the content of AE’s design should be delivered before the bid in advance. Defendant J agreed that the aforementioned bid process should be approved in a successive manner after receiving a report from Defendant K, etc., and the basic design report from AE was submitted to the Seoul Regional Land Management Office prior to the end of the bid, and then the basic design report and its summary report were submitted to the Seoul Regional Land Management Office to be modified from 17,07,000 square meters to 16,067,6716m or 260m of land size, respectively, by having the constructor submit the basic design report and its summary report or summary report.

B) Defendant 2.

The Defendant, as his employee, J, K, etc. of the Defendant, interfered with the Defendant’s bid of other constructors by deceptive means or other means with respect to the Defendant’s business.

2) EL tools (EM) construction

A) Defendant J and the Defendants agreed to receive in advance the content of AF’s DU section design before AF tender, instead of having the Z participate in the FL of AF and other construction works to be ordered in the future through FJ of the Z around August 2009, the Seoul Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ordered the construction cost of KRW 317,770,000,000 in construction estimates and completed the tender on September 14, 2009. Defendant J agreed to receive in advance the DU section design from AF before the bid, and Defendant J agreed to successively accept the above bid process by receiving a report from Defendant K, etc. and by having the AF obtain a design score lower than AF after consultation with the Z, thereby hindering other constructors’ bidding activities by fraudulent means or other means.

B) Defendant Z.

The defendant, who is the employee of the defendant, interfered with the bidding of other constructors by deceptive means or by other means with respect to the defendant's business, such as J and K.

E. Crimes committed by the Defendants related to AA

(i) EN tools (EO) construction;

A) The Defendant L and the Defendant: (a) ordered the construction cost of KRW 320,792,00,000 on September 14, 2009 by the Korea Water Resources Corporation; and (b) in the course of the tender of the EN Section after the tender on September 14, 2009, Defendant L distributed the construction cost to six companies at the FM, an executive officer of the Civil Work Headquarters around April 2009; (c) Defendant M conspired with X FB on June 1 to 9, 2009 in order by giving rise to the rate of comparison with X’s bid price and bid price; (d) X submitted a design to obtain a design score lower than AA; and (e) engaged in an act of purchasing or interfering with other competitive bidding at a price higher than AA’s bid price of KRW 303,006,000,000 adjacent to AA’s bid price of KRW 301,180,000,000.

B) Defendant AA

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, called L, M, etc., an employee of the Defendant, bid at a price determined in advance by bidders in competitive bidding with intent to obtain unfair profits or to interfere with fair price determination. At the same time, the Defendant interfered with other constructors' bidding by deceptive means or other means.

2) EI Tools (EJ) Corporation

A) Defendant L and Defendant M&C ordered construction cost of KRW 384,715,00,000 on the estimated construction cost at the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on September 15, 2009, Defendant L attempted to allocate construction sections to the 6th Steering Committee as above through FM, an executive officer of the Civil Work Headquarters around April 2009. Defendant M conspired with FH on June 9, 2009 in order at a lower rate of Y’s FH bid and bid price, and submitted a design prepared to obtain a design score below Y’s bid price at KRW 382,10,000,000, adjacent to Y’s bid price at KRW 376,400,000,000, which was adjacent to Y’s bid price, thereby interfering with the bidder’s competitive bidding or other competitive bidding at a fair price.

B) Defendant AA

The Defendant, as set forth in the foregoing A, called L, M, etc., an employee of the Defendant, bid at a predetermined price among bidders in competitive bidding with a view to obstructing a fair price determination regarding the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding by deceptive means

3) EP tools (EQ) construction

A) Defendant L and Defendant M&C ordered construction estimates of KRW 279,80,000,00 in construction estimates at the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on September 9, 2009, Defendant L distributed construction sections at the 6th Steering Committee as above through FM, an officer of the Civil Work Headquarters, around April 2009. Defendant M conspired with ADFC on June 9, 2009 to submit a design plan to obtain a design scores lower than AA, and at the same time, Defendant M conspiredd with AD to acquire or interfere with a fair bid price or any other unfair bid price for the purpose of interfering with other competitive bidding at a price of KRW 264,50,000,00 adjacent to AA’s bid price of KRW 261,327,000,000,000.

B) Defendant AA

F. Crimes committed by the Defendants related to AB

(i) DY tools (Z) construction;

A) Defendant N and Defendant 0 ordered construction estimates of KRW 134,40,000,00 to the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on April 21, 2009, Defendant N distributed construction sections at six operating committees as above from February 2 to April 2009. Defendant 0 conspired in the order of Y’s FE and Y’s bid price to be awarded a successful bid at a rate of 120,624,90,000, which is higher than 125,193,607,000, which is higher than Y’s bid price, and conspired to submit a design plan to obtain a lower design score than Y at the same time with a bid price of KRW 125,193,607,00, which is higher than Y’s bid price, thereby interfering with the bidder’s bidding or other competitive bidding at a fair price.

B) Defendant AB

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) by N,O, etc., who is an employee of the Defendant, bid at a price determined by each other in advance by bidders for the purpose of interfering with a fair price determination regarding the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding by deceptive scheme

(ii) EA Section (EB) projects;

A) Defendant N, Defendant 0

The Defendants ordered construction cost of KRW 288,119,00,000 on September 14, 2009 by the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and completed the tender on September 14, 2009, Defendant N distributed construction sections to six management committees as above on April 2009. Defendant 0 conspired with the FA of the Korea Water Resources Corporation’s Staff at the Korea Water Resources Corporation (“Korea Water Resources Corporation”) by holding in sequence at the rate of bid price and bid price so that W EZ and W can be awarded a successful bid, and submitted a design prepared to obtain a design score higher than W to receive a lower design score than W, and submitted a design prepared to meet W’s bid price of KRW 268,532,00,000, a bid price of KRW 271,117,000,000, which is higher than W, thereby interfering with the bidder’s bidding or other competitive act at the same price.

B) Defendant AB

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) by N,O, etc., who is an employee of the Defendant, bid at a price calculated in advance by each other for the purpose of interfering with a fair price determination regarding the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding by deceptive means

3) Section D. Construction Works (ES)

A) Defendant N and Defendant 0 ordered construction cost of KRW 264,229,00,00 to the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on September 9, 2009, Defendant N distributed construction sections at the six management committee around April 2009 as above. Defendant 0 conspired with FN of AG and AB at the rate of comparison on June 9, 2009 to submit a design document prepared to obtain a lower design score than AB, with the bid price of KRW 248,30,000,000, at the bid price of the AB, with the intention of interfering with the fair bid price of KRW 261,00,00,00 in advance, and with the intention of interfering with the fair bid price of a constructor at the price of KRW 261,00,00,000.

B) Defendant AB

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) by N,O, etc., who is an employee of the Defendant, bid at a price calculated in advance between bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination, and at the same time interfered with the tender of other constructors by deceptive means or other means.

(iv) EEC tools (ED) works;

A) Defendant N and this Defendants ordered construction estimates of KRW 368,562,00,00 at the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to order construction estimates and completed the tender on September 15, 2009, Defendant N distributed construction sections at the six management committee around April 2009, as above. Defendant N conspired with L’s EZ and W’s bid price at a rate of 338,340,000,000 won, which is higher than W’s bid price, with the aim of interfering with the fair bid price or other competitive bid at a price of 346,00,000,000, which is higher than W’s bid price, and at the same time, Defendant N conspired with L’s bidding or other competitive bid at the same time.

B) Defendant AB

5) ET tools (EU) construction

A) Defendant N and Defendant 0 ordered construction cost of KRW 180,00,000,00 for construction estimates at the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on September 9, 2009, Defendant N distributed construction sections at the six management committee as above on April 2009. Defendant N conspired with LW EZ and AB at the rate of 169,169,169,000,000,000, at the bid price of AB, with the intention of interfering with the fair bid price of a constructor by acquiring or interfering with other competitive bidding at a price of KRW 170,80,00,00,00 for a bid price of KRW 169,170,000,000, which is higher than the bid price of the constructor, and at the same time, Defendant n conspired with LW E and AB at the rate of 10,000,00.

B) Defendant AB

(g) AC-related Defendants - EV tools (EW) Corporation

1) Defendant P and Defendant Q Q put an order of KRW 196,673,00,00 on the estimated construction cost at the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completed the tender on September 9, 2009, Defendant Q sold Y’s EV tools from W according to the result of the consultation on construction section distribution at the six management committee around May 2009. Defendant Q had FH and AC receive a successful bid on June 9, 2009 through FI of the veterinary business office’s employees at the same time with the order of KRW 196,673,00,00,000 for construction cost; Defendant P conspired with Defendant Q to obtain a lower design score at the same time by submitting the design score at the same time with Defendant Q’s order to obtain a lower bid price and to manipulate the bid price at KRW 178,700,700,7408,700 for the purpose of interfering with the bid price at KRW 780,500,700.

2) Defendant AC

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing Paragraph 1, called P and Q, etc., an employee of the Defendant, bid at a price calculated in advance between bidders in competitive bidding with a view to obtaining unfair profits or obstructing a fair price determination as to the Defendant’s business, and obstructed other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive scheme or other means.

H. Crimes committed by AD-related Defendants

(i) EX tools (EY) construction;

A) Defendant R and the Defendant: (a) ordered 227,677,00,000 won of the estimated construction cost at the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; (b) in the course of the tender of the EX Section after bidding on September 15, 2009; (c) around May 2009, the Defendant S consulted with W C and R around June 2009 after obtaining the allocation of the EX Section from W according to the consultation on the allotment of construction sections at the six management committees; (d) around June 9, 2009, through FO and FC of the Public Work and Technical Team personnel at the Public Work Headquarters of the Republic of Korea; (e) at the same time, the bid price of W and the bid price of W were 227,67,00,000,000 won or more; and (e) at the same time, the Defendant R submitted the bid price of 200,000 won or more; and (e) the bid price of 2000500.

B) Defendant AD

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, called R, S, etc., an employee of the Defendant, made a bid at a price determined in advance by each other in order to obtain unfair profits or to prevent a fair price determination, and at the same time interfered with other constructors' bidding by deceptive means or other means.

2) EP tools (EQ) construction

A) Defendant R and the Defendant: (a) ordered a construction estimate of KRW 279,800,00,000 to the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs; and (b) completed the tender on September 9, 2009; (c) Defendant S offered a bid price of KRW 264,50,000,00 for a bid price at KRW 279,000,00; (d) around June 9, 2009 through FO and FC employees of the Civil Technology and Business Center; and (e) Defendant R offered a bid price of KRW 261,327,000,00 for a bid price at KRW 261,327,00,00 for a bid price at KRW 264,50,000; and (e) Defendant R offered a bid price at KRW 267,300,00 for a bid price at KRW 100,00.

B) Defendant AD

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, bid by R, S, etc., an employee of the Defendant, for the purpose of interfering with a fair price determination in connection with the Defendant’s business, made a bid at a predetermined price among bidders, and obstructed other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive means or other means

(i) AE-Crimes by the Defendants - DU tools (EK) Corporation

1) Defendant T

The Defendant: (a) in the process of the DoU Section tender with an order of KRW 344,300,000,000 on September 9, 2009 at the Seoul Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Land Management Office”); (b) on August 2009, the Defendant offered two FJ through FK employees of the Civil Work and Business Team to deliver AE’s design to the Z prior to bidding in advance; and (c) provided a basic report to the Z prior to bidding completion and submitted a written summary report and a summary report to the AE Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in consultation with the Z to change the volume of the riverine reservoir storage from 17,067 square meters to 16,067 square meters to 16,067 square meters, 21,920 square meters to 16,067 square meters; and (d) submitted a deceptive scheme or other design to the Z more interfere with any other constructor’s tender.

2) Defendant AE

In accordance with the above 1, T, etc., the defendant's employee interfered with the bidding of other constructors by deceptive means or other means with respect to the defendant's business.

(j) AF-Crimes by the Defendants - EL tools (EM) Corporation

1) Defendant U

The Defendant ordered construction cost of KRW 317,770,00,000 on September 14, 2009 at the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and conspired with 2 FJ through FL on August 2009 to deliver AF’s design to Z prior to tendering in return for giving ZF’s participation in a joint subcontractor in another construction project to be ordered in the future through FL on September 14, 2009. In short, the Defendant interfered with the bid of other constructors by submitting a design to obtain a lower design score than the Z through consultation with the Z by means of deceptive scheme or other means.

2) Defendant AF

The Defendant, U, etc., who is an employee of the Defendant, interfered with the Defendant’s bid by other constructors by deceptive means or other means with respect to the Defendant’s business.

(k) crime committed by the Defendants related to AG - ERB (ES) Corporation

1) Defendant V

The Defendant ordered construction cost of KRW 264,229,00,000 to the Busan Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 9, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the Defendant continued to bid price at the rate of 248,303,000,000 won, which is higher than AB’s bid price, in order to prevent fair price determination by submitting a design document to obtain a lower design price than AB’s bid price, and thereby interfering with the bid price at the same price as a deceptive scheme or by other methods, for the purpose of interfering with fair price determination by complying with the bid price of KRW 261,00,000,000,000, which is higher than AB’s bid price.

2) Defendant AG

The Defendant, as set forth in the above 1-mentioned, V, who is an employee of the Defendant, bid at a predetermined price among bidders in competitive bidding with a view to obstructing a fair price determination as to the Defendant’s business, and at the same time interfered with other constructors’ bidding activities by deceptive means

2. Other interference, etc. with bidding for the internship works.

A. Crimes by W-related Defendants

1) FP Corporation

A) Defendant B and Defendant D ordered KRW 221,70,000,000 of the estimated construction cost at the Korea Water Resources Corporation to compete with the design price at the level that the price score cannot change from July 10, 2009 to October 23, 2009. Defendant D promised to compete with the design price at KRW 210,584,00,00,000 and the bid price at KRW 210,567,50,000 and AA’s bid price at KRW 210,531,200, the bid price at KRW 20,530,000, the tender price at KRW 210,531,200, the tender price at KRW 10,530,00, the tender price at KRW 10,500,00 and the tender price at KRW 210,531,20,00.

B) Defendant W

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing paragraph (A), bid was made at a price determined in advance by bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or obstructing fair price determination with respect to the Defendant’s business, as stated in the foregoing paragraph (A).

(ii) the FR Corporation;

A) Defendant D

The Defendant ordered construction cost of KRW 165,291,00,000 to the Korea Water Resources Corporation on May 17, 2010, in the course of the FR tender, which completed the tender on May 17, 2010, the Defendant: (a) on May 2010, the Defendant: (b) in collusion with the F Q Q, etc. by receiving a report from the F Q, etc., the executive officer of the said Corporation, on the fact that the EZ personnel of the Korea Water Resources Corporation’s headquarters in the Republic of Korea decided to compete with the design score only when the price score cannot change; and (c) subsequently, (d) in collusion with the said F Q, etc. by obtaining the report from the F Q, etc., who is an executive officer of the said Corporation, to approve it; and (d) subsequently, (e) in the course of the FR tender, the tender price of KRW 156,90,00,000,00 adjacent to the bidder’s bid price of KRW 156,959,000,0000.

B) Defendant W

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing A, bid was made at a price determined in advance by bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination in connection with the Defendant’s business, as stated in the foregoing paragraph.

B. Crimes committed by X-related Defendants

(i) FP ERE;

A) Defendant E and Defendant F ordered construction cost of KRW 221,70,000,00 on October 23, 2009 by the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and the tender price for the FP construction project finished on October 23, 2009. From July 10, 2009 to October 10, the M and the bid price of W W EZ and AA are to be competitioned only with design in a state that the price score cannot change from the person’s own ability to change. Defendant F conspired in sequence by receiving a report from the person in charge, etc. on the above bidding process with the method of approving it. The bid price of W was 210,567,500,000 and AA’s bid price of KRW 210,567,500,000 adjacent to the bid price of KRW 210,584,000,000, which are the bid price of WA.

B) Defendant X

The Defendant, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (a), bid was made at a price determined in advance by bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination from the Defendant’s employees E and F, etc.

2) FS Corporation

A) Defendant E and Defendant F: (a) ordered 233,545,000,00 won of the estimated construction cost at the Korea Water Resources Corporation; (b) in the course of the FS tender with the end of the tender on October 26, 2009, Defendant E and Defendant F bid price at the Korea Water Resources Corporation; (c) around July 10, 2009, through employees of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, decided to compete with the design score at a level that the price score cannot be variable; and (d) in successive collusion by receiving a report from the competent staff, etc. on the above tendering process with the method of approving the bid price at a level that the price score cannot be variable; and (e) bid at a price calculated in advance between bidders for the purpose of acquiring unfair profits or interfering with the fair market price determination.

B) Defendant X

As stated in the above A, the Defendant, as the Defendant’s employee E.F., bid at a predetermined price among bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination in connection with the Defendant’s business.

C. A-Crimes by the Defendants involved - FP Corporation

1) The Defendant L and the Defendant ordered 221,70,000,000 won of the estimated construction cost at the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and completed the tender on October 23, 2009, Defendant M decided to compete with the design score at the level that the price bid price between July 10, 2009 and X-related parties cannot have a different feature of the price score. Defendant L conspired with the aforementioned bidding process by receiving a report from the FT, etc. of the Korea Water Resources Corporation at the order by approving it. Defendant L conspired with the above bidding process at the order of 210,584,00,000,000 won of X’s bid price and W’s bid price at KRW 210,531,200,567,500,000 adjacent to W’s bid price at KRW 210,56,500,000, a fair bid price at KRW 210,500,000.

2) Defendant AA

The Defendant bid at a price determined in advance by bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination with L, M, etc., the Defendant’s employee, as set forth in the foregoing 1.

(d) AB-Crimes by the Defendants involved - FR Corporation

1) Defendant N, Defendant 0

The Defendants ordered 165,291,000,000 won of the estimated construction cost at the Korea Water Resources Corporation and completed the tender on May 17, 2010. The Defendant, among May 2010, 20, determined that Y’s EZ and bid price at FE and W’s EZ will be competing with design points at the level that the price points cannot be variable. Defendant N conspired by way of determining AB’s bid price in order pursuant to the above agreement, and Defendant N conspired with 156,850,000,000 won, and W’s bid price at KRW 156,959,000,000, adjacent to W’s bid price at KRW 156,959,000,000,000, compared to W’s bid price at KRW 156,959,00,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring unjust profits or interfering with fair bid price.

2) Defendant AB

The Defendant, as stated in the foregoing Paragraph 1, bid was made at a price determined in advance by bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination with N orO, who is an employee of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant L, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant 0, Defendant R, Defendant S, Defendant U, and Defendant V’s respective legal statements

1. Each of the legal statements of Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant P, Defendant Q, and Defendant T

1. Each legal statement of the witness FJ and FL;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of A, H, FU, FV, and FW;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol and statement of suspect examination of the prosecution against B, C, D, E, F, G, H, H, K, M, P, P, P, Q, Q, TR, T, VI, FY, FY, GA, GB, EZ, FF, GF, GF, GC, GD, GF, GF, GJ, GJ, GJ, GJ, GL, GM, GN, GM, GM, FM, GM, GP, Q, GR, GR, and GTS;

1. LUK, GW, GY, GY, QG, HB, HB, HC, HD, HF, HG, HD, HH, HI, HM, HM, HH, HV, HH, HV, HV, HV, HV, HV, HH, HV, HV, HH, HH, HV, HH, HHH, IG, IB, IB, ICC, IB, IMO, IMO, IF, IMO, IF, II, II, VII, JJ, and JJ, respectively;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. EA공구 공사입찰(기본)설계용역서철 사본, EL공구 공사입찰(기본)설계용역서철 사본, ET공구 공사입찰(기본)설계용역서철 사본, EC공구 공사입찰(기본)설계용역서철 사본, 수사보고[1차턴키 W 합동사무실 운영현황 분석보고], 수사보고[(주)AD의 공구배분 담합 및 들러리 입찰참여 입증 자료 첨부보고], 수사보고[DT 사업과 관련한 W의 내부문서로 확인한 담합 정황 보고], 수사보고(W '설계보상비 수령 내역 등 정리), 수사보고낙찰 공구와 탈락 공구의 자료상 차이 비교검토 보고], 수사보고[Y, DY공구, EE공구, EI공구,EV 공구 입찰참가원 검토], 수사보고[Y EE공구, EV공구 설계보상비 청구서 검토], 수사보고[LU, EE 공구(EF) 용역계약서 등 임의제출 보고], 수사보고[LV, EE 공구(EF) 설계도서 임의제출], 수사보고[㈜LW 정산합의서, 설계용역 계약서, 입찰공고서, DU공구 설계업무 배분표 등 편철보고, 수사보고[LX㈜ 설계용역계약서, 하도급계약서, 정산합의서, 설계성과품(CD) 등 편철보고], 수사보고[LY이 입찰에 참여한 DT 턴키공사 중 탈락한 공사의 설계계약, 설계비 지급받은 내역 등 관련자료 등 첨부], 수사보고[Z EL공구 정산자료, DY공구 공동수급협정 품의서, DS 컨소시엄 운영분담금 납입내역, 2009년 경영계획서 편철 보고], 수사보고[Z 보관설계업체 도급순위, 2009년 턴키 입찰공고 공사현황 편철 보고, 수사보고[LY이 입찰에 참여한 DT 턴키공사 중 낙찰한 공사의 설계계약 관련자료 첨부], 수사보고[LY이 DU공구와 EC 공구의 시공사로부터 설계비로 지급받은 내역에 관한 자료 첨부], 수사보고[AE '설계보상비' 수령 내역 등 정리], 수사보고[Z의 입찰방해 및 가격 조작 경위 종합], 수사보고(DT 관련 공동추진협약 품의서 편철 보고), 수사보고[DT 사업 중 FS 등 턴키 공사 입찰 담합 의혹 보고, 수사보고[1차턴키 관련 X 설계용역 비교 검토 보고], 수사보고[MG 압수물 중 'LZ공구 시설공사' 문건 편철], 수사보고[EG공구 W B설계자료 인수자 확인], 수사보고(AD의 공부 배분 담합 및 들러리 입찰참여 입증 자료 첨부보고), 수사보고(AD의 회의자료 첨부보고), 수사보고(AA 탈락공구 들러리 입찰 정황 확인), 수사보고(AA 입찰 각 공구에 대한 담합 등 혐의 인정자료), 수사보고(EP공구 관련 AD의 투찰 가격 조작 정황 확인보고), 수사보고(AA-EN공구 및 'EP공구','EI공구 담합 의혹 혐의 인정 자료정리), 수사보고["FR 건설공사" 관련 자료 첨부], 수사보고[AB 전결규정 및 EA공구, EC 공구 설계사별 지급내역 등 첨부], 수사보고[ER 공구 관련 AB에서 AG의 주간설계사인 MA의 설계 성과품 점검 및 수정지시한 사실 확인, 관련 진술조서 첨부], 수사보고[AB 탈락공구 들러리 입찰 정황 확인], 수사보고[AB 공사수주 업무 흐름 정리 및 결재권자 검토 등], 수사보고[AB '설계보상비' 수령 내역 등 정리], 수사보고[FR 관련 발주처 자료분석], 수사보고[DT 사업 보 공사 들러리 업체에 지급된 설계보상비 내역 확인 보고], 수사보고[FR 가격담합 시기 확인], 수사보고[AB 입찰 각 공구에 대한 담합 등 혐의 인정 자료, 수사보고[녹취록첨부], 수사보고[AC의 DT 사업 참여 공구 관련 품의서 첨부], 수사보고[EV 공구 입찰참여 업무FLOW 및 생성 서류 첨부], 수사보고

[Report on the Status of Participation in Projects and Design Services by the TPP Do Governor [Attachment 5] Research Report [Attachment Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work of the TPP Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work of the TPP Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work of the TPP Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work of the PE Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work, Attachment Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work, etc. [Report on the Construction Work's Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work's Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work's Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work, Report on the Construction Work'], Report on the Construction Work' [Report on the Construction Work's Do Governor's Report on the Construction Work'], Report on the Construction Work' [Attachment Do Governor's Report on the Work'

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant R, Defendant S

Article 95 subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B, Defendant L, Defendant M. Defendant N, Defendant 0

Article 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of each Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Other Circuit Works)

C. Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F

Article 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of each Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 95 subparag. 1 of each Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Other ton Works)

D. Defendant J, Defendant K, Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

E. Article 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

F. Defendant T and Defendant T, Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

G. Articles 98(2), 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for Defendant W, Defendant X, and Articles 98(2) and 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (other internships)

H. Defendant Y, Defendant AD

Articles 98(2) and 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

I. Defendant 2

Articles 98(2) and 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(j) Article 98(2), Article 95 subparag. 1, and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 98(2), Article 95 subparag. 1, and Article 98(2), and Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (other internships)

(k) Article 98(2) and Article 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of Defendant AC and Defendant AG

C. Articles 98(2) and 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for Defendant AE and Defendant AF

1. Commercial competition;

A. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments prescribed on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to a price collusion with more severe crime quality) of Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant R, Defendant S, DefendantY, Defendant AD, and Defendant AD

B. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code for Defendant B, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant 0, Defendant W, Defendant X, Defendant AA, and Defendant AB (Punishments imposed on each of the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to price collusion, each of which is more severe than the nature of each of the crimes)

C. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for Defendant P, Defendant Q, Defendant V, Defendant AC, and Defendant AG Criminal Act (a punishment prescribed on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to a heavier price collusion)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant J, Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant L, Defendant M, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant P, Defendant Q, Defendant Q, Defendant R, Defendant R, and Defendant S Imprisonment.

B. Selection of a fine by Defendant T, U, and V

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant W, the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against the EC section with the highest penalty)

B. Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, and Defendant X Criminal Act: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the EE Tools with the most serious criminal intent (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the EE Tools)

C. Defendant H and Defendant I. Defendant Y

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the Tools)

D. Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant 2

Criminal Act Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on DU tools with more serious penalty) Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Crimes of Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry)

E. Defendant L, Defendant M, and Defendant AA Criminal Act: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for EN tools with more severe criminal penalty)

F. Defendant N, Defendant 0, the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on the part of the Section 2, with more severe criminal penalty)

G. The aggravated punishment imposed on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the ES, Defendant S, and Defendant AD Criminal Act and Articles 38(1)2 and 50 (the aggravated punishment imposed on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the ESX tools with more severe penalty)

1. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant T, U, and V);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant L, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant N, Defendant P, Defendant Q, Defendant Q, Defendant R, Defendant R, and Defendant S)

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The provisional payment order (the defendant T, U, V, the defendant W, the defendant X, the defendant Y, the defendant AA, the defendant AB, the defendant AC, the defendant AD, the defendant AE, the defendant AF, and the defendant AG)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The assertion on DT beams

1) Defendant Z: Although the Z participated in the W consortium, the Z only was invested in two sections (DU section, EL section) that were originally invested in consideration of the design capacity, period of time, execution capacity, etc., and it did not have been allocated a construction section, but did not participate in the other party’s design and bid interference. In the bid of the DU section and EL section, there was a fact that there was a correction of the design drawings of the other party’s construction company, and there was no collusion on the price. Thus, Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which requires that “the bid shall not be applied,” and Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which requires that “the tender by another constructor shall interfere with the bidding by the other constructor,” is not also applicable to Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which requires that “the head of the Z's civil engineering project is not in a position to receive or approve the consultation on the DT project from Defendant K, etc.

2) Defendant AC’s side: Although AC participated in W consortium and was allocated EV tools, there was no fact that the EV tools were allocated with Y participating in the EV tools bidding, and Defendant P, the head of the civil engineering project headquarters, did not receive the report, and does not constitute a violation of Article 95 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Even if the fact of collusion is recognized, it does not constitute a violation of Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which requires “to interfere with other constructors’ bidding.”

3) Defendant AE side: AE shows the design drawings to the Z and partially changed the design drawings of the Z, but there is no other 'other constructor who participates in the tender and is likely to obstruct the tender', and there was no interference with the tender because the act alone does not affect the result of the tender. Thus, it does not constitute a violation of Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

4) Defendant AF side: Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which provides that “The AF provided design drawings to the Z, partly modified the design drawings at the request of the Z, and there was no fact that the rate of implementation was known, but there was no fact that there was collusion with the price.”

(b) Any other argument on the internship Corporation.

1) Defendant W: With respect to the FP construction and the FR construction, there was a consultation on the bid price between the construction companies participating in the bidding within the scope of 95% of the estimated construction cost, but the bid price was agreed to compete with the design. As such, it does not constitute a violation of Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry that requires the purpose of acquiring unjust profits or interfering with the fair price determination.

2) Defendant X side: ① In relation to FP construction, there was no knowledge as to whether there was a total price fence between construction companies. ② In relation to FS construction, there was no knowledge as to whether there was a total price fence between construction companies, and in design part, there was no total design fence between construction companies, and even if there was a total design fence among employees, there was no fact that Defendant E and Defendant F received reports and approved.

3) Defendant AB’s side: As to the FR construction, there was a consultation between the construction companies participating in the tender on an bid within the scope of 95% of the estimated construction cost, but as such, it did not constitute a violation of Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which requires the purpose of acquiring unjust profits or interfering with fair price determination.

2. Relevant legal principles

Article 95 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that "tender at a manipulated price in collusion with one another for the purpose of acquiring unjust profits or interfering with fair price determination." Article 95 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is a special provision for interference with tendering under the Criminal Act to punish constructors who engage in an act detrimental to the fairness of construction works. Interference with tendering is a provision for punishing any act that causes unfair influence on fair price formation through a fair competition by means of deceptive scheme, force, or other means in an auction or bidding. Here, "reasonable price" means the price formed when a successful bidder is determined by free competition. This does not necessarily mean the price established when the successful bidder is determined by free competition. This includes not only an act detrimental to legitimate and fair competition as well as a price determination. In particular, in the case of collusion, it is merely a means to prevent unfair competition among bidders, and thus, it can be seen that there is a risk of 90% or 94% of a fair price determination by a bidder, barring special circumstances.

In addition, Article 95 subparag. 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that a person who obstructs tenders by other constructors by means of deception, threat of force, or other means in bidding from a tender for construction works shall be punished. In full view of the purpose and purpose of Article 95 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the forms of Article 95 subparag. 3 of the same Act, which provides for "the obstruction of bidding as the obstruction of tender under the Criminal Act," instead of limiting the reasons for interference with bidding in detail, such acts as a deceptive scheme, force, or other means, as the requirement thereof, are to punish constructors who comprehensively interfere with the fairness of bidding of construction works, except for reasons stipulated in Article 95 subparag. 1 and 2, the concept of "tender act" is the same as "an act of interference with bidding under the Criminal Act," and thus, the concept of "an act of interference with fair bidding from the conclusion of a tender contract to the conclusion of a tender contract," which is the same as "an act of interference with fair bidding from the conclusion of a tender." (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do1361.

(See Seoul High Court Decision 2013Do413 decided May 24, 2013)

3. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2007, the team leader KRE of the Presidential Transition Team called the "MI TF Team" expressed the plan to promote the "MI construction project" as a transfer-lease, among the executive officers of WC affairs, X (G Standing), Y (F Standing), Z (MJ Standing), AA (FMM Standing), and MG Co., Ltd. (GM Vice Chairperson), a designer.

B. Accordingly, domestic construction companies around January 208 included five construction contractors (including W, Z, Y, X, AA in the first to fifth order of domestic contract; hereinafter referred to as "W consortium") centered on AB, and five construction joint contractors centered on AB (including AB, AF, D, DW, AC, and AD falling under the sixth order of domestic contract; hereinafter referred to as "AB consortium"), nine construction companies centered on DV [including 10 joint contractors at the time of domestic contract-based 11st to 20th order, excluding DG, DV, MH, MH global, MV, MV, 200, MV, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 20,01,000).

M Q Q, MG, MR, mm, stock company, and MT, and AB consortium secured only MU. 4).

C. On June 19, 2008, the government declared the suspension of "MI construction project" due to the aggravation of public opinion, etc., but 5) around December 15, 2008, the Balanced National Development Committee (the name was changed to the "Regional Development Committee" by Act No. 9629, Apr. 22, 2009) decided on the "DT project" as a Korean-type green New Zealand project, the existing "MI construction project", which was suspended, was decided to be implemented in the form of financial project funded by the State in the form of build-transfer project. After that, on January 19, 2009, the construction technology research institute service rendered by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, which was established at least 6 companies in Korea (M6 companies), LY companies, MY companies, MG companies, MG companies, MMM companies, MR companies, MMM companies, and MM companies), and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs order the 200D project plan.

D. On February 9, 2009, the Construction Technology Research Institute ordered DT master plans, the DY ("MX works"), the leading project, announced the announcement first of all of the DY tools ("MX works"), and as a result, AB affiliated with WW consortium enters a competitive system, such as participation in bidding, which would result in the reduction of bid initiative and the confusion in the bidding market, C of W W consortium's operating committee, which was not integrated, decided to enter the AB consortium's construction works, which had not been integrated for the reason that C would demand that the same share should be allocated, which was the main project owner of the AB consortium, participated in the relevant construction works, and proposed that AB MG MG MD design and 7 MG MG MG design and consortiums, which had been affiliated with the AB consortium, were all affiliated with the AB consortium, and proposed that the BW MG design and consortium, which had been affiliated with the AB consortium, at the time of May 209.

E. From March to May, 2009, 19 construction companies together agreed on the share ratio of each construction company in the DT business through a hotel group located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, MY MZ hotel group, etc. Accordingly, around April to May 5, 2009, the "DT private investment project agreement" was concluded (hereinafter "19 construction companies agreement") which determines the share ratio of each company (hereinafter "the 19 construction companies council"). Unlike that the existing companies constituted one management committee as one construction company, six construction companies (W Jeon general, ZD general, YF general, XG general, AMF general, and ABN managers), and discussed the major matters of the construction companies' 19 construction companies' consultative council (hereinafter "six companies management committee"), and discussed the major matters.

F. Meanwhile, on April 27, 2009, the Construction Technology Research Institute issued an intermediate announcement on the "DB Project", and around that time, six management committees agreed to secure the 14 construction sections except for NS Section (2 sections) among the 16 construction sections, six construction sections were allocated to A and AD, and the remaining two sections were allocated to the 14 construction sections of the 16 construction sections, and the 10 G construction sections were assigned to the 6 G construction sections of the 10 G construction sections, including the 5 G construction sections. The decision of specific construction sections was made with the participation of the executive officers in the 10 G construction sections, and the 10 G construction sections were finally allocated by the 10 G construction sections, including the 16 G construction sections. The 10 G construction sections were finally allocated by the 10 G construction sections.

H. Four parts, including the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the Ministry for Food, and the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, established and announced DT Master Plan to present the basic direction of DT business on June 8, 2009. According to this, the purpose was to complete the construction by the end of 201, including the input of project costs of KRW 22,20 billion (the cost of this project KRW 16.90 billion, direct connection project KRW 5.30 billion, and the installation of 16 beams discharged from military service in DT, and 15 construction works (hereinafter referred to as "DT Firstton construction works"), excluding DT construction works, which are leading projects, were conducted on or around September 6, 2009, and tender was conducted on or around September 15, 2009.

4. Determination

A. Determination on the part of DT beams

1) As to the argument on the part of the Z

A) Whether there was collusion

In full view of the above evidence: ① the Z has participated in the 2nd construction section from the first time of the 2nd construction section to the 19th construction section; ② the 19 construction section council has been finally converted into the 19 construction section; ② the 2nd construction committee has participated in the important decision of the 19 construction committee including the 19 construction section council; ② the 6th construction section 5th construction section 16th construction section 5th construction section 5th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 2, and the 5th construction section 2nd construction section 5th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 2, and the 5th construction section 2nd construction section 14th construction section 16th construction section 16th construction section 2.

On the other hand, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence in relation to the DU section tender, ① the head of ZFJ proposed to the effect that, on September 209, the 2009 no longer remains with DU section bid, 'E', which is a general manager of the DU section, shall be asked to help the Z, and the head of the AENC shall be able to ensure that the bid price is clearly determined, and the head of the AENC shall have prepared the Z's design report to be changed to the 6th anniversary of the DU section tender. The head of ZJ proposed to the effect that, after the 6th anniversary of the DU section tender, the 6th anniversary of the DU section tender, the 2th anniversary of the DM tender, the head of ZJ shall be required to participate in the 9th anniversary of the DM design report to be submitted to the head of the AE auction, and the head of the AEJ shall be considered to have been submitted to the head of the AE design work and other public contractor.

나아가 EL공구 입찰과 관련하여, 앞서 든 증거들을 종합하면, ① Z FJ 부장은 EL공구 입찰을 얼마 남겨 두지 않은 2009. 8. 말경 수주영업실 상무인 피고인 K로부터 'EL공구에서 낙찰을 안정적으로 받을 수 있도록 도와줄 수 있는지 AF에 의사를 타진해보라'는 말을 듣고 AF FL 부장에게 '객관적으로 싸워봐야 Z이 이길 것 같은데 Z이 편하게 안정적으로 낙찰을 받을 수 있도록 도와달라'고 제안하였고, AF FL 부장은 피고인 U 상무와 협의를 거쳐 '투찰가격까지는 알려줄 수 없고 설계도면을 보여주겠다. 다만 AF을 향후 다른 턴키공사에서 공동수급사(서브시공사)로 참여시켜달라'고 제안하였으며, 이에 Z FJ 부장은 K 상무를 통하여 토목사업본부장인 피고인 J의 승인을 얻어 AF FL 부장에게 'AF을 향후 다른 턴키공사에서 공동수급체(서브시공사)로 참여시켜주겠다'고 약속한 점23), ② 2009. 9. 1.~2.경 Z의 JP 차장은 GE 상무로부터 24) 지시를 받고 NF 과장와 함께 AF 합동사무소에 방문하여 AF LM 차장으로부터 AF의 EL 공구 설계도를 제공받은 다음 Z의 설계사인 주식회사 MR의 GV 상무를 통해 검토를 거친 후 AF의 설계를 토대로 Z의 설계 중 미비한 부분을 보강하는 한편 AF 측에는 일부 설계를 안 좋은 쪽으로 변경하도록 요청하였고, AF은 Z의 요청에 따라 일부 설계를 수정하기도 한 점 25), ③ 그 후 입찰일인 2009. 9. 14.부터 2, 3일 전 그때까지 가격에 관한 정보를 알려주지 않고 있던 AF FL 부장이 Z FJ 부장으로부터 '실행률을 알려달라'는 부탁을 받고, AF 토목영업팀에서 실행률을 알아낸 다음 '실행률은 89%대 정도다'라고 알려주었는데, 더 나아가 투찰률 내지 투찰가격까지는 알려주지 않은 점26), ④ AF이 통상의 입찰에 참가하는 경우 작성하는 입찰견적 품의서에 따르면 27), 설계도대로 설계하였을 경우의 공사원가 (실행가격)와 도급액을 비교한 실행률을 산정한 다음 각 투찰률 별로 경우를 나누어 손익 발생을 비교하고 있고, AF은 이와 같은 입찰견적품의 서를 토대로 입찰 당일이나 입찰 전날 최종 투찰률을 결정하는데, AF FL 부장이 Z FJ부장에게 실행률에 관한 정보를 제공할 당시에는 아직 투찰가격 내지 투찰률이 정해지기 이전 단계였을 뿐 아니라 투찰률 및 투찰가격은 공사현장의 기본적인 비용을 위주로 산정하는 실행률에다가 본사의 운영비용 및 공사에 따른 회사의 이윤 등을 적절히 더하여 산정하는 관계로 통상 실행률만으로는 투찰률 및 투찰가격을 바로 알기 어려운 점, ⑤ Z FJ 부장이 AF FL 부장에게 위 실행률 그대로 투찰을 해달라거나 어느 정도의 가격으로 투찰을 해달라고 부탁한 사실을 인정할 증거도 없고, 달리 Z과 AF 사이에 입찰가격을 협의하였음을 인정할만한 다른 증거도 존재하지 않는 점28), 6 Z의 토목사업본부장인 피고인 J는 EL공구의 실제 투찰 무렵, 처음 계획한 투찰가 (296,540,000,000원)에서 2% 낮추어 투찰을 하도록 지시하였고, 이에 따라 2% 낮은 가격(290,180,000,000원)으로 투찰가가 결정되었는데29), 이는 Z과 AF 사이에 위 투찰가격에 관하여는 최종 협의가 없었음을 반증하는 점 30), ⑦ AF은 Z에게 알려준 실행률과 유사한 공사추정액(317,770백만 원)의 89.98%에 해당하는 285,929 백만 원으로 투찰하였으나, 이는 AF이 이미 Z에 설계도면을 모두 보여주고 공동수급체(서브시공사)로의 참여까지 보장받아 경쟁을 포기한 상태에서 공사에 따른 이윤 등 투찰가격 결정 요소에 대한 추가적인 검토, 반영 없이 실행률 그대로 투찰하였기 때문이라고 이해되는 점31) 등이 인정된다.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, even if the Z did not participate in the Z bidding up to the RU tools and EL construction sections prior to the distribution of the above construction section, or even if the internal policies of the company were already established to participate in the bidding of the DU tools and EL construction sections, it shall be recognized that other constructors (excluding three construction companies later withdrawn from the 19 construction contractor consultative bodies) conspired and executed the overall collusion with respect to the execution of construction including the ratio of ownership and the distribution of construction sections. Thus, the defendants' arguments against this issue are without merit.

B) As to the violation of Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Construction Industry Act

As can be seen in the facts found above, the bid rate and the bid price are based on the rate of implementation mainly on the basic expenses of the construction site, calculated by appropriately adding the operating expenses of the headquarters and the company's profits from the construction site. In general, the bid rate alone is not enough to identify the bid rate and the bid price. Furthermore, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that Z has requested a person in charge of AF to reflect the bid rate known to AF as it is, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement on the determination and manipulation of a certain price or price price in relation to the tender in this case, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the Defendants' assertion on this point is with merit.

C) As to whether Article 95 subparagraph 3 of the Construction Industry Act has been violated

As seen earlier, as seen in the facts of recognition, the act of the Z participating in the conference of the 19 construction companies and participating in the conference of the construction companies and distributing two sections, so that other construction companies participating in the council may waive their part of the bidding in accordance with the above collusion agreement, and with respect to other construction companies not participating in the council, it is practically difficult for the relevant design company to participate in the bidding in a manner that the council renders it difficult to hold the bidding in fact, while acquiring information on the design drawing or execution rate of the bidder to the specific bidding act of the individual construction section, the act of acquiring information on the bidding party's design drawing or execution rate, etc. by impairing fairness throughout the entire bidding process of each of the above bidding process constitutes an act of " interfering with the bidding act of other constructors by deceptive means, force or other means." Accordingly, the defendants' assertion disputing this is without merit.

D) As to Defendant J’s conspiracy

In full view of the above evidence: ① Defendant J held office from January 207 to December 201 as the head of the headquarters of the Z, and took charge of civil engineering projects such as the establishment and implementation of the plan to participate in bidding of the civil engineering works, progress of construction works ordered by the Z, and field management; Defendant J stated that “The investigation agency stated that “the two sections of this case cannot independently request design data, etc. from the competitor, and that “the decision of the head of the Z is necessary” should be decided by the Z.” ② In the case of 6 sections of this case, the members of the Z are considered to have violated the provisions of 5 sections of this case and the 3rd sections of this case, and that “the 5th sections of this case were to have been decided by the Z from the 5th section of this case’s order and the head of the 5th section of this case’s order to participate in the competitive bidding, and that each of the 3rd sections of this case’s order and the 4th section of this case’s order of this case’s work.”

2) As to the argument by AC

A) Whether there was collusion

In full view of the above evidence, AC's Standing Director: (a) on January 2009, YC entered into a proposal that "AB consortium belongs to AB consortium; (b) on the ground that AC, a leading entity of the above consortium, would have been incorporated into W consortium; and (c) on the ground that AC would have taken the same position, it reported the fact to the defendant P, who is the head of the public works project headquarters, together with NG Standing, and obtained approval; (b) on the other hand, AC KY Standing Director, 37 with the approval of the defendant P, the head of the public works project headquarters, 6.9% shares of 6.9%; and (c) on the ground that QV 2, the director of QV, who is the head of the public works headquarters, would have received 9.7 billion shares from W.M. 9, the head of the public works headquarters, and the director of QV, in accordance with such ratio, would have been offered to the head of the public works headquarters, 30.5.

PQ 제출 이후 Y에 연락해서 들러리로 참여하였다는 사실을 확인하였다'라고 진술한 바 있는데41), 당시 그 자리에는 토목사업본부장인 피고인 P를 비롯하여 대표이사와 각 사업본부장(플랜트사업본부장, 건축사업본부장, 에너지사업본부장, 경영지원본부장) 등의 임원들이 참여하였던 점, ④ 이와 관련하여 Y IP 상무는 'FF 상무가 EV공구 설계는 설계보상비 범위 내에서 하라고 하여 들러리입찰에서의 B설계를 요구한다는 것을 감으로 알 수 있었다'는 취지로 42), Y FG 부사장은 'EV공구 입찰공고를 얼마 앞두지 않은 2009. 6.경 FE 상무로부터 W에서 영업 쪽 회의를 하고 왔는데 Y에서는 EV공구를 협조해주기로 협의가 되었다는 보고를 받았고, IV 상무로부터도 EV 공구는 Y에서 AC을 도와주기 위해 입찰에 참여해 주어야 하는 공구라는 보고를 받았다'는 취지로 43), YIV 상무도 'EV공구는 AC을 도와줘야 한다고 해서 들어간 들러리 입찰이었다'는 취지로44), Y FE 상무도 '입찰공고가 날 무렵 FF 상무가 Y에서 협조해줘야 하는 공구가 EE공구와 EV 공구로 협의체에서 확정되었으니 영업본부에서도 입찰준비를 해달라고 말했다'는 취지로45) 각 진술한 점, ⑤ 나아가 Y FH 부장은 'EV공구 PQ 제출 무렵 V상무가 저에게 EV공구 입찰에 참여하여 AC을 도와주라고 지시하였다. 입찰일자 2~3일 정도 전에 AC 영업팀장인 FI 부장이 저에게 전화를 걸어와서 Y에서는 이번에 EV 공구 입찰에 통상적인 투찰율로 투찰을 해달라고 부탁을 했던 것으로 기억한다. 그래서 당시 Y에서는 EV 공구의 투찰율을 95% 정도 내외에서 투찰했던 것으로 기억한다. 들러 리입찰에서 투찰가격을 쓸 때는 실행과 상관없이 대게 95% 선에 맞춘다'는 취지로 46), Y FG 부사장도 'TV 상무나 FE 상무 선에서 다른 업체와 조율을 해서 Y의 투찰가격이 정해졌을 것이다'는 취지로47) 각 진술하였는바, AC로서는 Y이 들러리업체라는 사정을 알고 있는 상황에서 들러리업체가 투찰하는 일반적인 업계의 방식에 따라 투찰가격을 결정하라는 부탁을 하였던 것으로 보이고, Y로서도 자신들이 들러리업체인 까닭에 AC의 부탁에 따라 일반적인 업계의 방식에 따라 투찰가격을 결정하였던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ '공구를 배분받은 업체는 들러리업체에 입찰일 2~3일 전 투찰가를 관례대로 써 달라고 요청하는 경우가 있고, 이 경우 들러리 업체로서는 구체적인 액수를 알려주지 않더라도 최상한선에 해당하는 95% 선에서 투찰가를 작성하는 것이 업계의 관행'이라는 진술들이 있는 데 48), 실제로 이 사건 입찰의 경우에도 Y은 196,673백만 원의 공사추정액에 94.8%인 186,450백만 원으로 투찰하여 38.35점을 획득한 점49), ⑧ 한편, Y의 설계사인 NH의 LS 상무는 입찰일 이전인 2009. 9. 2.경 AC 직원 KX 과장에게 공법 등 핵심내용을 정리한 '분야별 중점 설계공법 비교안'이라는 이메일을 보내고, 2009. 9. 7.경 AC 설계사인 MS의 담당자 LA 과장에게도 같은 내용의 이메일을 보내는 방법으로 Y 측 설계공법 관련 자료를 제공하였는데 500, 그 중 준설공법, 보단면결정, 수문, 수차발전기, 조경 등은 설계점수 산정에 중점요소에 해당한다고 볼 수 있는 점51), ⑨ AC의 경우 EV 공구에 있어 기술영업부분 및 사업수행부분은 피고인 P가 최종 결재자이었던 것으로 보이는 점52) 등이 인정된다.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, it is recognized that AC had Y and Russty bid and bid price, etc., and furthermore, Defendant P also approved such circumstances, thereby committing a violation as prescribed by the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or jointly performing a violation through functional control based on the joint will with the actor. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion disputing such violation is without merit.

B) As to the violation of subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 95 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

As seen earlier, as long as AC is deemed to have received information about the bid price equivalent to the bid price from Y in fact, it can be deemed that there was a consultation about determining and manipulating a certain price in connection with the bid of this case. Furthermore, AC may be deemed to have been an act of hindering other constructors by participating in the consultative body of the 19 construction companies following the late 19 construction companies participating in the consultative body and by allocating one section according to the collusion on the apportionment of construction sections, etc., and allowing other construction companies not participating in the consultative body to waive their bidding pursuant to the above collaborative agreement, and making it virtually difficult for other construction companies not participating in the consultative body, such as the method of monopolying the consultative body of the relevant designer and the method of putting up their bidding). On the other hand, obtaining information on the data related to the design of the bidder constitutes an act of hindering the tender of other constructors by impairing fairness throughout the bidding process throughout the entire process.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion against this is without merit.

3) As to the argument by the AE side

As can be seen from the fact of cooperation related to the collusion between the Z and the AE as seen earlier, AE shows the design drawing of the said bid to the Z and revises it as required by the Z. It is an act of bidding actively participating in the act of the collaborative realization of the Z, to which the said construction section was allocated from the 19 Construction Co., Ltd. consultative body, and thereby making it practically difficult for other construction companies to participate in or participate in the 19 Construction Co., Ltd. consultative body, thereby impairing the fairness of the bid process. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion in this regard is without merit.

4) As to the argument of AF on the part of AF

As can be seen from the fact of cooperation related to the collusion between the two parties and the AF as seen earlier in light of the detailed contents of the Z EL section, it is general that the bid rate and the bid price are calculated by appropriately adding the operating cost of the headquarters and the company's profits pursuant to the construction work to the cost of the construction site. In addition, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Z had requested the AF to reflect the bid rate as it was known by the AF, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement on the determination and manipulation of a specific price or price in relation to the bid in this case, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the Defendants' assertion has merit.

B. Determination on other parts related to the Circuit Corporation

1) As to the argument by W and AB

Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence: ① in the case of FP construction, the price score is 40%, and design score is 60%, and the employees of W and X and AA agreed to compete only with design in the highest amount within the scope not exceeding 95% of the expected amount. Accordingly, W shall be 94.96%, X shall be 94.99%, and A shall be 94.98%, respectively. ② in the case of FR construction, the price score is 30%, design score is 70%, and the employees of W and Y and AB agreed to compete only with design within the maximum amount not exceeding 95% of the expected amount, and as a result, W shall be 94.96%, Y94.89%, and AB shall be 94.92%, respectively.

According to the above facts of recognition, it can be deemed that the above companies exchange information about bidding price among them, and even if we look at the fact that the above companies conspired with regard to the distribution of tools, etc. under the 19 construction company consultative bodies, the above companies would have agreed upon and executed certain prices with respect to the bidding of this case for the purpose of interfering with fair price determination. Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned relevant legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the above price negotiation was reached in order to lead to excellent design according to the characteristics of the dial construction requiring high technology. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion disputing this cannot be justified.

2) As to the allegation by X side

A) As to the violation of Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

In full view of the above evidence, the FPP Corporation announced the tender amount of KRW 221.7 billion to the Korea Water Resources Corporation on July 10, 2009. W on November 26, 2009, the tender date of KRW 210,531 million, which is 94.96% of the expected amount of work; X is 210,584 million, which is 94.99% of the expected amount of work; A is 210,56.7 million, which is 94.98% of the expected amount of work; the FS construction 5.7 billion, which is 2,35.7 billion, the public tender price of KRW 5.5 billion, which is 2,535 billion of the estimated amount of work; and the public tender price of KRW 2,50,000,000 of the estimated amount of work by the Korea Water Resources Corporation is 9.7 billion of the tender, and there is no significant difference between the tender price of KRW 2.368.4.77 billion of the tender amount.

B) As to the violation of Article 95 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

In full view of the above evidence: ① YI’s executive officers, on September 209, at the end of X, agreed to have a meeting to exchange the preparation status and progress of the YI’s NA and basic design; ② YI’s executive officers, X NY’s design director, and NKNL’s design director, signed an agreement on the 200th anniversary of the early 209 YI’s initial design, and the 1st anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th executive officer’s signature on the 6th executive officer’s signature on the 6th executive officer’s agreement, and the 1st executive officer’s signature on the 1st executive officer’s signature on the 0th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 0th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 6th executive officer’s 9th executive officer’s agreement.

63), 64, which acknowledges price collusion, stated to the effect that "the head of the Y Civil Work Headquarters and the FG head of the Y Business Headquarters are competing with the design", 7, X and Y reflected fish ladders in the design unlike the contents of the above agreement, and X designed two copies differently from the contents of the above agreement. It is recognized that the above agreement cannot be viewed as being reflected in the actual design. Thus, in case of X, even if X attempted to consult with the design, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement was refused in the process of obtaining approval, and it is supported by the circumstances that the above consultation was not reflected in the actual design, so it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement on the design, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the defendants' assertion on this point is justified.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

A. Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J. Defendant K, Defendant L, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant N, Defendant R, Defendant R, and Defendant S: Imprisonment with labor for not more than seven years and six months.

B. Defendant P and Defendant Q: Imprisonment for not more than five years. Defendant W, Defendant X, DefendantY, Defendant Z, Defendant AA, Defendant AB, Defendant AB, and Defendant AD: Fines not exceeding 75 million won.

D. Defendant T, U, Defendant V, Defendant AC, Defendant AE, Defendant AF, and Defendant AG: Fine not exceeding KRW 50 million

2. Determination of sentence;

피고인들이 담합하여 입찰, 시공한 이 사건 DT 사업은, 투입된 국가재정과 사업의 규모가 방대할 뿐만 아니라 국토개발과 환경보호라는 상충된 법익을 둘러싸고 사업의 정당성 자체에 대한 국민적 논란까지 많았던 까닭에 그 사업의 절차적 공정성과 투명성의 확보가 특히 중요하여, 이를 침해하는 부정행위는 그 비난가능성이 높다. 따라서 이 사건 담합행위를 실질적으로 주도하거나 그로 인한 부정한 이익을 취득한 개인 혹은 법인에 대해서는 법정형의 범위 내에서 엄벌로 다스릴 필요가 있고, 그와 같은 주도적 지위에 있지 아니한 자에 대해서도 가담 정도에 따라 책임에 상응한 처벌로써 재발을 방지할 필요가 있다. 검사가 지적하는 바와 같이 과거 대형 국책사업에 대한 입찰 담합 사건에서 건설사들만 기소하여 처벌하거나(NM 공사 65)), 기소된 건설사 임원들에 대해서도 벌금형만을 부과한(NN 공사) 검찰 및 법원의 조치가 유사 사안의 재발을 막는데 미흡했던 것으로 밝혀진 점 역시 그 처벌의 수위를 종전보다 강화할 필요가 있음을 나타낸다. 다만, 피고인들이 일치하여 주장하는 바와 같이, 이 사건 DT 사업이 그 규모의 방대함, 국내 건설사와 설계회사의 수주 능력의 한계는 물론, 환경파괴의 우려에 대한 국민적 관심도 감안하여, 공정하고 실질적인 경쟁과 환경보호의 측면을 두루 반영한 개발이 이루어질 수 있도록 시기별로 몇 개 공구씩 분할 발주하는 등 신중하고 체계적인 사업계획을 수립, 추진하는 것이 바람직했음에도 단기적인 성과에 집착하여, 15개 전 공구의 동시 발주 및 단기간 내 일괄 준공을 목표로 한 무리한 계획을 세워 입찰공고를 한 결과, 한정된 설계기간 및 설계회사 확보 등의 문제로 건설사들로 하여금 상호 담합의 빌미를 제공하였던 점과, 이 사건 담합행위에 대한 제재로써 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률에 기한 각 4개월 내지 15개월의 조달청 입찰참가 제한 및 8개월 내지 15개월의 수자원공사 입찰참가제한과 함께 독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률에 기한 거액의 과징금 부과(대략적으로, W 220억, X 103억, Y 96억, 2225억, AA 198억, AB 178억, AC 41억, AD 50억 원)66)의 불이익처분이 내려진 점, 기타 위 건설사들이 이 사건 이후 담합행위의 근절을 위해 취하고 있는 회사 내·외부적인 각종 조치 등은, 건설사 소속 임원으로서 그 직책상 입찰 및 시공 계획을 수립해야만 했던 자들의 범행 동기와 양형 면에 있어 다소나마 참작할 사유는 될 수 있다고 본다. 그밖에 아래에서 보는 피고인들의 개별 정상까지 모두 참작하여, 이 사건 담합행위의 법적 주체이자 경제적 이익의 귀속처인 건설사에 대해서는 단순 가담의 경우를 제외하고는 법정 최고형에 해당하는 최고액의 벌금형을, 이 사건 담합의 온상이 된 컨소시엄 및 협의체의 운영위원장직을 맡아 건설사들 간의 공구 배분 등 담합행위를 실질적으로 주도하고 정부와 건설사들 간의 가교 역할까지 맡아 공정경쟁의 질서를 훼손한 피고인 C에 대해서는 상당한 기간에 해당하는 징역형의 실형을 각 부과하기로 하고, 건설사 임원으로 그 직책상 이 사건 담합행위에 직·간접적으로 관여한 피고인들에 대해서는 그 맡은 역할과 가담 정도, 범행의 전력 등을 감안하여, 책임이 경미한 경우에는 종전처럼 벌금형을 부과하되 실질적 불이익 처분이 될 수 있도록 벌금액을 정하고, 책임이 상대적으로 무거운 경우에는 이 사건으로 상당기간 구속되어 반성의 기회를 가진 점 및 이 사건 담합행위에 가담하여 같이 책임져야 할 지위에 있으면서도 기소조차 되지 아니한 자들과의 처벌의 형평성 등을 감안하여, 그 집행을 유예하기는 하지만 건설사 내규 등에 따라 건설사 임원직 결격사유에 해당하는 징역형을 부과하되, 각 징역 및 집행유예의 기간은 개별적인 책임의 정도에 따라 달리 정하기로 한다.

In light of the above principles of sentencing, the act of collusion between the Defendants and the 2nd executive officers of the construction company and the 3nd executive officers of the construction company based on the degree of liability. In the case of W, X,Y, Z, AB, six companies leading the operation of the 19th construction company consultative body are relatively more responsible for the act of collusion, and W, as the 3rd executive officers of the construction company and the 19th executive officers of the construction company were the 19th executive officers of the construction company, the 19th executive officers of the construction company were the 19th executive officers of the construction company, and the 3nd executive officers of the construction company were the 6th executive officers of the construction company of the 1st executive office of the 1st executive office of the 6th executive office of the construction company, and the 6th executive officers of the construction company of the 1st executive office of the 1st executive office of the 6th executive office of the 6th executive office of the construction company. The 6th executive officers of the construction company could not participate in the 6th executive office.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) DT beams;

1) Z-Crimes by the Defendants involved - EL tools (EM) Corporation

A) Defendant J and the Defendants agreed to receive delivery of the content of the DU section design to identify AF’s bid price in advance before the bidding from AF, instead of having the FF participate in other construction works ordered in the future through FJ of the Z (F) around August 2009 by ordering construction cost of KRW 317,770,000,00 in the Seoul Regional Land Management Office of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and completing the bid on September 14, 2009. Defendant K agreed to submit a design document to obtain a lower price than AF’s bid price of KRW 285,90,000,000 in order by receiving a report from Defendant K, etc. on the above bidding process and approving it, Defendant J agreed to obtain a fair bid price of KRW 285,00,00 in advance, or to interfere with a fair bid price of KRW 285,90,000 in advance.

B) Defendant 2.

The Defendant, as an employee of the Defendant, bid at a price determined in advance by the bidders for the purpose of obtaining unfair benefits or interfering with fair price determination as described in the above paragraph (a).

2) AF-Crimes by the Defendants - EL tools (EM) Corporation

A) Defendant U

The Defendant ordered construction cost of KRW 317,770,00,000 on September 14, 2009 at the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and agreed to deliver the AF’s design to the Z prior to the bid in return for giving the FJ’s participation of the ZF in another construction project ordered in the future through FL by the staff of the domestic business team staff at the Korea Water Resources Corporation around August 2009. In short, the Defendant submitted a design prepared to obtain a lower design score than the Z after consultation with the Z and submitted a design prepared to obtain a lower design score than the Z to 290,180,000,000 won for the bid price of KRW 285,928,500,000 adjacent to the Z to KRW 285,928,500,000 for the purpose of acquiring unfair profits or interfering with fair bid price determination.

B) Defendant AF

The Defendant, U, etc., who is an employee of the Defendant, bid at a predetermined price among bidders in competitive bidding for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or interfering with fair price determination as described in the foregoing paragraph (a).

(b) Other interference, etc. with tenders for the internship works;

1) Crimes by X-related Defendants. FS Corporation

A) Defendant E and Defendant F agreed on five items of design, including: (a) Defendant E and the Korea Water Resources Corporation ordering KRW 233,545,000,000 of the estimated construction cost; and (b) in the course of the FS tender with the end of the tender on July 26, 2009, the FE and the bid price through the employees of the Korea Water Resources Corporation around July 10, 2009, are competing with design points at a level that the price score cannot change; and (c) “FE and the bid price shall be compared to the design points at a level that the price score cannot change; and (d) the number of so-called so-called 21,366,200,000, which is the bid price at Y’s bid price at Y’s bid price at 221,36,200,000,000, which is adjacent to Y’s bid or other methods.

B) Defendant X

The Defendant, who is the employee of the Defendant, interfered with the tender of other constructors by deceptive means or other means, as described in the above paragraph (1).

2. Determination

In the case of each of the above facts charged, as seen in the above, 4. A. 10(b) and 4.1(b) and 4.2(b) of the "decision on the argument of the accused and the defense counsel" part of the above facts charged, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the violation of subparagraph 1 or 3 of Article 95 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is charged with the commercial concurrence between each of the above facts charged and the facts charged, he/she shall not be acquitted separately

Judges

presiding judge, judge, full-time leaves

The number of judges

Judges Doo-leap

Note tin

1) In the case of Defendant V, the Prosecutor’s Office only changed the indictment for interference with bidding to the remaining natural persons except Defendant V in its preliminary indictment, and even if the applicable provisions and facts charged are applicable to the indictment, the tender interference portion is not included in the indictment, and it is determined that this part remains by mistake. Accordingly, it is not determined separately.

2) W was allocated EAB(EB) and EEC tool(ED). X was allocated with the ECE tool(EF) and EG tool(EH), Y DY tool(DJ) and EG tool(EJ), Z, DU tool(EK) and EL tool(EM), AO in EN tool(EO) and EP tool(EM), AB in EN tool(EO) and EP tool(EEU), AB in EV tool(E document) and EX tool(EY) respectively.

3) In addition, with respect to other construction companies belonging to the 19 Consultative Body, the organization of joint contractors with the above six construction companies and the participation of two construction companies with the NS basins, and the participation of the internships that will be ordered twice in the future.

4) On January 24, 2008, MF Co., Ltd., the first instance of the design performance in the water resource field, concluded a service contract with MV Co., Ltd., an affiliate, and was under review the participation in the project, and did not participate in the first WW consortium. Around the end of January 2009, MF was involved in W consortium.

5) Accordingly, AB consortium dismantled itself through the settlement process around 2008, October 10, 2008, but Wconsium changed its existing M business to “MW and PC business,” continued to maintain the DS joint office by changing it to “DTS joint office,” and, as seen thereafter, dismantled around May 2009, after the completion of the construction section distribution.

6) Although MT was not included in the original DT Project Master Service Team, it was determined that participation in DT Project Masters would be favorable to the basic and implementation design, and that it was not paid for.

7) Evidence Nos. 2, 1-80, M-780, 785, VI-2872, V-288, VI-752, and separate books I-1272, etc.

8) The established equity ratio of the execution is as follows (net equity ratio. In the case of the same equity ratio, the net equity ratio is as follows (VI-81, 820 pages of investigation records).

A person shall be appointed.

9) The term “DT project primary internship project” refers to the project of the 15 project sections, i.e., the tender notice of June 29, 2009, i.e., the 15 project.

10) The result of the final section distribution and the result of the award are as follows (1-140 pages by investigation records):

A person shall be appointed.

11) DW, ML corporation and MN corporation participated in the bidding of individual construction sections by organizing a joint supply and demand organization consisting of ML corporation as a main contractor after withdrawing from the 19 joint supply and demand organization. The EG section allocated to X was finally awarded a final contract by ML corporation.

12) Investigation records 1-3087, I-983 pages, etc.

13) I-2099, II-10 pages, etc. of investigation records

14) II-613 pages, etc. of investigation records

15) Separate books of investigation records I-1567, 1568, 1753, 5815 pages, etc.

16) Investigation records MI1010 pages, etc.

17) As a result, Defendant J stated to the effect that “There is any part of the materials that other large construction companies have not entered the section into which the Z enters” (i.e., investigation records 1-5386, 5922).

18) According to the GF statement in the Z, including Section II-5152, 5153, 532, the investigation records, and the GF statement in the Z, Defendant J-587, 5153, and 5332, Defendant K, one of the directors of the headquarters of the civil engineering project, can show the design to be talked with the AE in the office of the head of the headquarters of the civil engineering project, who is the director of the headquarters of the public engineering project, before bidding, and in return, he decided to accept the joint contract in other projects (such as Investigation Record III-587, Book I-2425 pages, etc.).

Furthermore, the Defendant T, the head of the AE Civil Engineering Business Team, who was reported by the head of the AE NC, was rejected for the first time, but it was accepted under the condition that the participation of the K K K K K K K K K K K K K K KK at the next 3 days prior to the date of the bidding (a investigation record III-4075, 5489, 5489, 5490, 5506, 5506, 559, 5690, 5697, 601745).

19) 2의 HE 부장은 수사기관에서 "따붙이기는 입찰도서 인쇄 후 틀린 부분을 수정하기 위하여 틀린 부분을 수정하여 워드로 출력한 다음 양면테이프를 붙이고 해당 부분에 덧붙이는 방식으로, 입찰도서 작성지침에 따르면 감점사항이기 떄문에 시간이 허락된다면 그 페이지 전체를 재인쇄하는 '낱장갈이' 방식을 하여야 한다"고 진술하고 있다(수사기록 II-4069쪽 등)

20) Ⅲ-2139, 2140 pages, etc. of investigation records

21) II-2129 pages, etc. of investigation records

22) Investigation Record III-1916, 4071 pages, etc.

23) II-5145, 5515, 5516, 5956 pages, etc. of investigation records

24) At the time of the regular director, GE received instructions from Defendant J and Defendant K, who is the director of the Civil Engineering Project Headquarters at the time of the regular director, from Defendant K, who is the director of the Suwon Business Office, to deliver the instructions (Investigation Records I III-5012, 5019, 58 pages, etc.).

25) Investigation Records II-4106 et al. less than 4850, X-462, 506-508 et al.

26) Witness FL and FJ’s respective legal statements, investigation records II-519, 5520, 5538, 5965 pages, etc.

27) X-540, 541 pages, etc. of investigation records

28) Witness FL, each legal statement of FJ and 1-1867, 2389 pages, etc.

29) Ⅲ-5026, 5937 pages, etc. of investigation records

30) II-5023, 5382 pages, etc. of investigation records

31) A witness’s legal statement

32) According to the results of the investigation by the Fair Trade Commission, a large-scale designer capable of designing the DT construction is insufficient, and most of the construction companies are entering into and maintain a contract with the construction company at the time of transfer-transfer-transfer-lease, and in order for another company to enter into the contract with the said design company, the consultation with the construction company already entered into a contract and the design company was inevitable for a certain portion (i.e

33) Investigation records 1-593 pages, etc.

34) Investigation Record III-160, 226, 5363, 5827 pages, books I-152, 1754 pages, etc.

35) Witness FJ’s legal statement and investigation record II-5018, 5080, 5081, 5086, 5148, 5328, 5335, 5549, 5550, 5853, 5894, 5962, 5971, 5983, 6020, 6030, 6030, 6031

36) Separate books for investigation records from 1263 to 1265 pages, etc.

37) Separate books of investigation records I-1270 pages, etc.

38) 1 -166 pages, etc. of investigative records

39) I-1094 pages, etc. of investigation records

40) Investigation Records II-107 et al. less than, separate books I-136 et al.

41) Investigation Records VII-146, separate books I-171, 1172 pages, etc.

42) Separate books of investigation records I-1294 pages, etc.

43) Separate books of investigation records I-1954~1955 pages, etc.

44) Separate books of investigation records I -2329 pages, etc.

45) Separate books for investigation records 1-2402 pages, etc.

46) Investigation Records II-912~914 pages, etc.

47) Separate books of investigation records I-1955 pages, etc.

48) V-2826 pages, separate books I-1226 pages, etc. of investigation records

49) Separate books of investigation records II-1949 pages, etc.

50) VI-861 pages, etc. of investigation records

51) I-1227 of investigation records, books 1-2242 pages, etc.

52) If the entity that received the section distribution of Section I-907 pages, etc. within the scope of 53) the possibility of the successful tender of another competitor may be significantly lowered if the entity receives the information on the tender. Section I-1331, 2893 pages, etc. for each investigation record.

54) AB and AP participated in the Pte of DU tools, which was around July 6, 2009, in addition to Z and AE, but did not comply only with the final bidding.

55) A stage (in the case of collusion with both prices and designs), B (in the case of collusion with design offered by fixing prices) and C (in the case of competition with both prices and designs) can be seen as having been directly involved in the tendering process, “The price was determined by the company and competition with design only.” In the case of the FP construction, the price was “B stage (in the case of collusion with both prices and designs) determined by the company and competition with the design (in the case of below 1-4852).”

56) The FSton Corporation was a construction work in which price is set and design competition (1-2859 pages 1-2859 pages, etc.). The FSton Corporation was a type of competition only with design points fixed by the price (58 pages 1-2956 pages, etc. of investigation records) price is known to be suitable for YFE located on the business side at the time of submission of the PP. (2936 pages, etc. of investigation records).

59) C-340 of investigation records, books 1-382-390 pages, etc.

60) Separate books of investigation records I-389 pages, etc.

61) V-340 pages, etc. of investigation records

62) W-449-4450 pages, etc. of investigation records

63) In the case of PS construction works, X classify X as “design” (Investigation Records -1766), which reflects that this part of the construction works was a competition with design.

64) According to the FG’s statements, the prices were string and designed as “the game which is held at low prices,” following the process of coming into and going through and going through and going through and going through a string up to a final bid. As such, an agreement was reached among the operating employees only on the bidding price. It was difficult for them to wring up with a string, with a string design. The final result was Y even if only one of the design examiners was Y, it was difficult for them to wring up to Y, and the final result was wring up to Y.”

65) In the case of NM collusion that occurred from around 2004 to around 2005, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced on November 7, 2007, WW, X, Z, Y, AB to the first instance judgment on February 14, 2008 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007 Godan 6399), the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the appellate judgment on June 27, 2008 (2008No862), and sentenced the Supreme Court on April 14, 201 (208Do6341), each of the construction companies participated in the collusion of this case.

66) The votes, as arranged, are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

67) In the case of the NOO Work Circuit Tender case that occurred from around May 2006 to around July 2007, Defendant K, etc. was prosecuted on February 15, 2008, and on May 27, 2008, the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced the first instance judgment (2008 Highest 280), and on January 8, 2009, the Seoul East Eastern District Court sentenced the appellate judgment (2008Do772), the Supreme Court sentenced the appellate judgment on May 28, 2009 (2009Do990), and sentenced the appellate judgment on July 24, 2009 (2009Do734), and sentenced the appellate judgment on July 24, 2009 (2009Do857) to the Supreme Court rendered a final appeal (2057).

참조조문

-국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률