Korea Criminal Act(KCA) Art. 315(Interference with Auction or Bidding) reads as follows: “A person who interferes with the impartial conduct of an auction or a bid through fraudulent means or by the threat of force or by other means, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding seven million won.” So when a person(or a bidder) unlawfully manipulates computer programs of the agency calling for bids in order to obtain information about a minimum bidding price so that he can win the contract for sure. In the present case handed down by the Suprem Court of Korea, the defendants(bidder and manipulators) are found not guilty of Fraud by Use of Computer, etc(Art. 347-2 KCA) because a directness between a data processing and a property taking. The present paper agrees with the opinion of the Court, and moreover denies the violation of Fraud(Art. 347 KCA) in that the conduct does not make pecuniary loss to the agency. A bid-rigging is punishable by the Art. 315, and a violation of the Korean Anti-monopoly law and Construction law as well.

I. 대상 판결
 Ⅱ. 문제의 소재
 Ⅲ. 입찰방해죄의 성부
  1. 입찰방해죄의 의의
  2. 위계에 의한 입찰방해의 유형
   1) 담합입찰
   2) 가장입찰
   3) 낙찰예정가 입수
  3. 입찰방해의 본질과 낙찰예정가의 입수 문제
  4. 본 사안의 경우
 Ⅳ. 컴퓨터사용사기죄의 성부
  1. 문제의 소재
  2. 1심의 판결이유
  3. 사기죄의 처분행위의 직접성
  4. 처분행위의 ‘직접성’과 “책략절도”
  5. 본 사안의 경우
 Ⅴ. 낙찰예정가의 사전입수와 사기죄 성부
  1. 문제의 소재
  2. 담합입찰의 기망적 요소
  3. 낙찰예정가의 사전 입수와 사기죄의 성부
  4. 입찰방해를 사기죄라고 할 경우의 정책적, 추가적 문제점
   (1) 입찰방해죄의 사문화
   (2) 검찰의 과도한 기소재량
  5. 본 사안의 경우
 Ⅵ. 결론
 [참고문헌]
 [Abstract]

• 한상훈(연세대학교 법학전문대학원 교수, 법학박사, Professor, Law School, Yonsei University) | HAN, Sang Hoon