When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is the head of the D Housing Redevelopment Project Partnership.

On November 12, 2014, at the office of the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association, located on the second floor of the building Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Bupyeong-gu E, the Defendant received an official letter from the Bupyeong-gu head of Bupyeong-gu, the vice head of Bupyeong-gu, who received an order for correction related to the disclosure of data following the implementation of the rearrangement project, and continued to receive an official letter from the vice head of Bupyeong-gu at the same place around the same month.

Each of the above official questions is that “The Defendant received 100 won per copy of the materials related to the request for disclosure of information requested by members F, etc. from the Defendant, and opened to the public,” but the Defendant did not comply with the direction of the competent authority for correction by demanding the above F, etc. to reproduce KRW 1,000 per copy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness G or F’s legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Orders for correction related to disclosure of data following the implementation of each rearrangement project;

1. Civil petition applications;

1. Application of statutes, such as a written request for information disclosure;

1. Article 85 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the choice of punishment and Article 85 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act argues that since the Defendant and the defense counsel agreed with F, which made a copy of the cost of duplication related to the disclosure of information, the order of correction by the competent authority disregarding such agreement is unlawful.

In light of the purport of Article 81(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, which imposes the duty of a project implementer, etc. to apply for perusal and copy in order to promote transparency in the improvement project, and to fulfill the right to know of its members, and the circumstances indicated in the written application for the disclosure of information, the content that imposes the cost for duplication of KRW 1,00 per head is not more than the cost of actual expenses with which