본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

입찰방해와 컴퓨터등사용사기죄, 사기죄의 직접성

Interference with bidding, fraud by use of computer, and the directness in fraud

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

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.

Abstract

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.

참고문헌 (19)

  1. 권오승, "경제법" (2015)
  2. 김성천, "형법각론" (2014)
  3. 김영천, "입찰에서의 담합행위와 입찰방해죄의 성부", 대법원판례해설, (37) (2001)
  4. 김용빈, "建設産業基本法 제95조 제3호 소정의 ‘入札行爲’의 意味(=刑法上 入札妨害罪에 있어 入札과 같음)", 대법원판례해설, 통권 : 39 (2002)
  5. 김일수, "사기죄해석론에서 몇 가지 문제점", 법학논집, 29 (1993), 고려대학교 출판부
  6. 김일수, "형법각론" (2007)
  7. 박상기, "형법총론(제9판)" (2012), 박영사
  8. 박상기, "형법각론(제8판)" (2011), 박영사
  9. 배종대, "형법총론" (2013)
  10. 2015, , ~
  11. 이재상, "형법각론" (2015)
  12. 이형국, "형법각론" (2007)
  13. 천진호, "형법총론" (2016), 준커뮤니케이션즈
  14. 최병천, "판례중심 형법각론" (2016), 피엔씨미디어
  15. 5권, "주석형법, 4권", 6권
  16. 한상훈, "형법 및 형사특별법상 재산범죄 가중처벌규정의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사법연구, (26), pp.139~168 (2006), 한국형사법학회
  17. Tröndle, "StGB, 49 Aufl", ~ (1999)
  18. Schönke, "StGB, 29. Aufl", ~ (2014)
  19. Tiedemann, "Leipziger Kommentar" (2009)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (19건)