A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles as follows, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby refusing to comply with the request for perusal of the CM service contract, and resulting in the conclusion of the contract that would be a partner who did not pass a resolution at a general meeting, thereby violating the law relating to each city and residential environment.

A) The Defendant’s refusal to comply with the request for perusal and reproduction of the CM service contract. ① At the time, the Defendant did not constitute a criminal agent under Article 86 subparag. 6 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Defendant was merely the head of the E Housing Redevelopment Development Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”) and was not an executive officer of the partnership.

② At F’s request, a copy of the CMF service contract was sent to F.

③ The F withdrawn the request for reproduction of the instant case by agreement with union employees or Defendant.

B) On December 30, 2014, at an extraordinary general meeting, there was a resolution on the borrowing of funds exceeding the limit of borrowing and lending funds under the self-consumption lending and borrowing agreement (hereinafter “the instant monetary consumption lending and lending agreement”) with the large forest industry stock company (hereinafter “large forest industry”) on June 23, 2015 at an extraordinary general meeting, and on April 2, 2015, there was a resolution on the re-loan of the said funds at an ordinary meeting.

② On December 30, 2014, the case of concluding a contract for construction works, which was resolved at an extraordinary general meeting, is not a resolution on matters concerning borrowing expenses incurred in relocating. Therefore, there was a resolution at the general meeting to restrict the limit on borrowing expenses incurred in relocating pursuant to Article 16(1) of the said contract for construction works.

shall not be deemed to exist.

③ On December 30, 2014, the management and disposition plan (not including the management and disposition plan (No. 4 agenda) which set the interest expense for relocation at an extraordinary general meeting of KRW 20.1 billion, was subject to this resolution.