A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, while operating a food materials supplier company for school meal services in a mutual name, instructed the Defendant to participate in the bidding under the name of a business entity established by family members, etc. in the same bidding for the purpose of raising the bid price ratio for the supply of food materials for school meal services, and ordered the sale type E, etc. to participate in the bidding for the supply of food materials for school meal services in the name of the business entity whose name the permission for the supply of food materials for school meal services was previously granted. Accordingly, E, “F”, “H”, and “J” decided to participate in the bidding under

The Defendant kept the goods jointly purchased by four enterprises, such as D, in the storage of food materials for the first floor, and the Defendant participated in the tendering procedure for the supply of food materials for school meal services in the name of the above enterprises, while allowing E, G, and I to participate in the tendering procedure in the name of the above enterprises, and even if one of the four enterprises receives a successful tendering procedure, the goods jointly purchased are disguisedly supplied as if the successful bidder purchases the goods from D.

On October 26, 2015, the Defendant, in accordance with the foregoing plan, participated in the bidding of the small number of agricultural and fishery products at L School in the Busan East-gu Office, and in the name of the D Office in November 2015, the Defendant instructed E, G, and I to participate in the said bidding in the name of each company, while E, G, and I was awarded a bid equivalent to KRW 2,891,77,700 in total on 138 occasions as shown in the attached Table, such as the bid awarded a contract for the said supply in the name of D, E, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the fairness of school meal service tendering through fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of E, G, and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each report on internal investigation (No. 1, 2) and each investigation report (No. 4,8)

1. Relevant Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act are applicable;