beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, C, D and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants A, B, C, and D (the amount of a fine of KRW 15 million for the defendants A, the amount of a fine of KRW 70 million for the defendant B, the amount of a fine of KRW 10 million for the defendant C, the amount of a fine of KRW 10 million for the defendant D corporation, and the amount of a fine of KRW 50 million for the defendant D corporation) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (defendant A, B, C, and E) declared by the court below against the Defendants each sentence (the fine of KRW 15 million is imposed on the Defendants; the fine of KRW 70 million is imposed on the Defendants B; the fine of KRW 10 million is imposed on the Defendants C; the fine of KRW 10 million is imposed on the Defendants E; and the fine of KRW 10 million is too unreasonable.
2. As in the instant case, in a case where collusion was performed in a government-funded construction project, it is necessary to punish the relevant person with severe possibility of criticism because the ripple effect indirectly lies in the majority of the people.
Defendant
A, C, and E are those who have led the practice of the collusion in this case or who have decided to participate in the collusion by obtaining a report from the supervisor and approving it, and have a high possibility of criticism.
However, the instant construction project bid is evaluated by giving a certain weight to the design score and the price score under the internship contract method, and the highest point was determined as the successful bidder. The instant collusion was conducted only on the price portion, and it seems that the actual competition was conducted in the design field where the same weight (50%) is given to the price portion, and relatively low competition was lower.
In addition, the circumstances leading up to the instant case are likely to have been the cause of preventing blood-related competition.
In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the motive and background of the Defendants’ crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the benefits obtained from the collusion in this case, the management situation and size of the Defendant Company, and the equity in punishment with the collusion participants, the lower court against Defendant A, B, and C.