201st order 2638(a) The offering of bribe, b. interference with business, c. interference with tendering

1.(a)(b).

A

2.(b).

B

3.(b).

C

So-called "leap", "leap", "leap", "leap", and "leap", respectively.

Law Firm D, Attorneys E and F (private ships for all defendants)

September 20, 2012

Defendant A’s imprisonment for eight months, Defendant B’s fine of KRW 1,00,00, and Defendant C’s fine of KRW 500,000, respectively.

When Defendant B and Defendant C fail to pay the above fine, each of the above fines of KRW 50,000 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

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

Criminal facts

Defendant A (former G) is a public relations worker who plans and supervises one project for the selection of the redevelopment contractor as a head of the housing project headquarters, and Defendant B was dispatched to the above site in order to support the project executor’s selection as a representative of the JP construction office. [The progress of housing redevelopment project] one is about 6th of May 22, 2008, and one is about 0th of May 1, 2008, which is about 20th of May 1, 2006, which is about 7th of May 200, which is about 1st of May 200, which is about 1st of May 2006, which is about 1st of May 200, which is about 1st of June 200, which is about 1st of May 206, which is about 200, which is about 20th of August 4, 2008, which is about 1st of June 28, 2015.

Although the construction cost presented in the above bidding was not significant in the difference between the two companies as KRW 3,900,000 per square year and KRW 3,890,000 per square year for Hyundai Construction, there was a little difference in the construction cost offered by the above companies under the project participation proposal, such as the construction cost, relocation expenses, and moving expenses.

However, on May 15, 2010, at the general meeting of the association members for the selection of the contractor for the zone (hereinafter referred to as the "general meeting of the association members of this case") s. S. Construction and Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong Construction") participated in the bidding. A total of 827 union members, 466 on the day of the on-site voting and 733 members, including 267 prior absentee voting, attended the voting and 71 votes were awarded a bid for s. S. Construction was awarded as the contractor due to the difference in 71 votes.

A, in the course of planning and preparing a briefing Construction project explanation meeting and promotional travel for its members, determined that the number of members with the authority to select a work executor could be high, which is a competitor, could be distinguished from the modern construction. In collusion with Defendant B, the Vice Minister of S, the above N T, and Defendant C, who is a public relations worker, in collusion with the NA Construction 0, P, Q, R, etc., and the above M S, the Vice Minister of Team 1 Team of the above MM, the above N T, and Defendant C, the public relations personnel, in order to attract the members' awareness to NA construction even if they are using unlawful methods of purchasing the members by offering money and valuables or entertainment.

Accordingly, at around 17:00 on May 14, 2010, Defendant C promised to select members V as a contractor for the construction of NA and give a prior vote, and then contact Defendant B, an employee of the company in charge of the company, with one million won in cash, to prepare for the following: (a) the above V was transferred to the redevelopment association office in Zone 1; and (b) the above contact was made; (c) the above Defendant B, with an envelope of KRW 200,000,000,000 in cash, issued to the above V with an envelope of KRW 50,000,000 in cash immediately; and (d) purchased the above V as money in order to provide the basis for the purchase of the above V as money, he prepared a lease agreement with the content that the dwelling room and the toilet of the house in the above V association for two days.

In addition, Defendant A, while holding a business explanation meeting against the above S and the above T prior to the general meeting for the selection of a contractor, instructed the members to provide them with entertainment such as special hotel meals, lodging, and floating performances, etc. on May 14, 2010, Defendant A provided them with entertainment equivalent to KRW 24,79,375 by providing them with special hotel meals and floating numbers to the members and accompanying family members attending a china meeting held for 500 persons in X-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 14, 2010.

In addition, Defendant A ordered the above S and the above T to offer entertainment such as the above 0, P, Q, and the above R to the above trip for 23th day of Busan AA hotel, and provided them with entertainment equivalent to 40,59,660 won for 20 days by providing them with the above-mentioned entertainment, the above-mentioned P, the above-mentioned P, Q, and the above-mentioned R to the above trip. From May 13, 2010 to May 15, 2010, Defendant A provided them with entertainment equivalent to 40,59,660 won by providing them with a bus prepared in advance for 1 district members and 70 family members and 70 family members, using the bus and the KTX train to the Busan AA hotel for 20 days.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired, as seen above, to provide the members with the authority to select a contractor with money or entertainment in relation to the conclusion of the redevelopment project agreement of the redevelopment project association, and to purchase the members and support the on-site voting of the union members for the selection of the contractor or the in-house absentee voting process, thereby hindering the selection of the developer by fraudulent means.

2. Offering of bribe by Defendant A;

From May 13, 2010 to May 15, 2010, the Defendant provided approximately KRW 650,000,00,000 to the employees of promotional service companies such as SS, who received their instructions, and to AB deemed public officials to be appointed as a contractor of the redevelopment cooperative through its branch construction as a public official for audit by the redevelopment cooperative through its branch construction employees, with the offer of entertainment in the amount of KRW 650,00,00,00, for 203 hours by using buses prepared in advance and the KTX trains to the Busan AA hotel.

Accordingly, the defendant given a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. V statutory statement;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Defendants, S,O, AB, Q, T, P, and R

1. Statement by the prosecution against AC;

1. Each police statement made to AD, AE, AF, AG, and AH;

1. Recording notes,

1. The provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes shall apply to internal investigation command (Attachment of a petition), investigation report (to record and attach data submitted by the members of AI members, telephone investigation, X hotel data submitted by the members of AI members, to record and attach a certified copy, to record and attach a certified copy, to records of hotel data analysis and data submitted, N, personal data submitted, to record and attach data submitted by GS construction, to record and attach a performance memorandum, external investigation, document attachment of the fifth representative minutes, and report on the submission of B call details);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business), Article 133(1) of the Criminal Act (the offering of a bribe), and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the offering of a bribe only to Defendant A), and the imprisonment with prison labor to Defendant A, and the fine to Defendant B and C is selected.

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant B, C);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the circumstances that may be taken into account as a result of a crime committed for the benefit of the company to which such person belongs)

Determination and sentencing of the Defendants’ assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants cannot be deemed to have interfered with the work as a deceptive scheme since they provided money and valuables and entertainment to the members to select a work executor, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have interfered with the work as a deceptive scheme. ② Defendant A merely provided the members with entertainment, such as hotel accommodation, as part of public relations activities for the members, and not only knew of the fact that an auditor AB did not participate in such events, but also provided entertainment without any connection with the duties as an auditor, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed the crime of offering a bribe.

2. Determination

① As to the facts stated in the judgment, Defendant A provided a guideline for participation in bidding, which prohibits a construction executor from individually notifying a construction executor to participate in a construction project to be selected as a contractor, prohibits a construction executor from providing goods, money, or property interest, and deprives a bidder who has violated this provision of bid qualification. (No more than 61 pages of investigation records) and, as to the facts stated in the judgment, Defendant A provided money and valuables to some union members despite the submission of a performance note (67 pages of investigation records) which contains the above contents before participating as a bidder at the general meeting of the union members of this case. Accordingly, it is sufficient to view that Defendant A interfered with the business of selecting a contractor by a corporate redevelopment association under Article 18(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

Next, according to the above evidence and all the circumstances acknowledged thereby, AB, who is obligated to report to the general meeting of the union members when he/she discovered that the management of the union's property and the performance of its business of the union was unfair or unjustifiable, was promoted at the general meeting of the union members of this case, and that the union's accommodation of the union members of this case was completed at the general meeting of the union members of this case. The above events were promoted in accordance with the direction of Defendant A, and the number of its subordinate employees was reported by the union members of this case. On the other hand, AB, who is obligated to report to the general meeting of the union members of this case, would not be asked of questions of union members while reporting to the general

3. The reason for sentencing (defendant A) is for the crime of seriously benefiting the transparency and fairness of the procedures for selecting a contractor for an improvement project, such as redevelopment of housing, and the nature of the crime is heavy, the cost of the improvement project is increased due to the crime, and delay of the project is anticipated. It is clear that the damage will return to the members’ expense.

In addition to the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime except for fines for these crimes, and even if considering the fact that the crime of this case has a customary characteristic in redevelopment project, the elements of the above sentencing, the defendant's denial of the crime, and the fact that the mistake seems not to be divided, the punishment shall be determined like the disposition by the order.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

In collusion, the Defendants, as stated in the facts of the above facts, conspired to offer money or entertainment to the members who have the authority to select a contractor with regard to the conclusion of a redevelopment project agreement for the redevelopment project of the redevelopment project association, thereby ensuring that the Defendants were able to purchase the members and support the construction of S in the process of the general meeting of the union members or in the process of prior absentee voting for the selection of the contractor, thereby impairing the fairness of the selection of the said

2. Determination

A. As to interference with bidding

The crime of interference with bidding under Article 315 of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime established when the fairness of bidding is harmed by deceptive schemes, force, or by other means. Here, "act detrimental to the fairness of bidding" means a situation that unfairly affects the formation of a reasonable price through fair competition, and such act includes not only price-fixing but also acts that undermine the lawful and fair competition methods. However, in order to establish such interference with bidding, there must exist bidding procedures that are the object of interference. Therefore, it shall not be punished as a interference with bidding on the ground that there was an act detrimental to fair competition in the process of concluding a contract at the option of a public and private economic entity, not for a fair price formation through fair competition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5037, May 29, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles, the method of selecting a contractor by the resolution of the general meeting of the instant association members is not simply the procedure of selecting a contractor at the lowest price, but rather the procedure of selecting a contractor at the lowest number of union members through public relations on the construction cost, project cost and relocation expenses of Hyundai Construction, project implementation schedule, optimal residential environment creation schedule, and various benefits to union members. Thus, the process of concluding a contract at the discretion of the union is not the procedure of selecting a contractor as a contractor. Thus, the bid of the redevelopment association cannot be deemed to constitute a bid under the interference of bidding, contrary to its name.

C. As to interference with the business of modern construction

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another's business by deceptive means or by force. The term "defensive means" means that a person misleads the other party or makes him/her use of land to achieve the purpose of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, Mar. 25, 2005). On the other hand, in establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require any actual interference with business, and it is sufficient that there is a risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2801, Mar. 11, 197). According to the records, Hyundai Construction was announced at the general meeting of the members of the instant association by promoting construction costs, etc. and participating in tendering procedures. There is no evidence to deem that the Defendants interfered with the tender of Hyundai Construction by causing misconceptions or sites to the members of the redevelopment association.

3. Conclusion

Thus, as to the obstruction of bidding among the facts charged above, since it constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the obstruction of work for the modern construction constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, all of the defendants should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the obstruction of business against the redevelopment association in relation to the commercial competition,

Judges Yoon Don-do