도시및주거환경정비법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) among the project implementation plans (not known) resolved at the general meeting of shareholders on February 24, 2012 by the D Urban Environmental Maintenance and Improvement Project Association, the estimated plan is indicated as “other expenses”; (b) KRW 8 billion,3.64 billion, as “other expenses”;
Even if it cannot be seen as the budget, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, although the defendant's public relations service contract of the general meeting concluded around August 19, 2013 as the president of the above union constitutes "a contract which becomes a partner's burden other than the matters stipulated in the budget," which was prohibited by the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the president of the association for urban environment maintenance and improvement projects (hereinafter “instant association”).
In order to conclude a “contract that will become a partner, other than the matters prescribed in the budget” under the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments, the Defendant entered into a public relations service contract for an ordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the instant union and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) at around August 19, 2013, without a prior resolution of the general meeting of the partnership, containing the following: (a) the organization of the list of partners; (b) the promotion and explanation of the principal contents of the union members’ general meeting; (c) the attendance of the union members; and (d) /M; (d) an explanation on the method of preparing the written resolution of the general meeting of union members; and (e) the relevant work of the general meeting of union members requested by the union; and (e) around October 16, 2013, concluded a public service contract for the general meeting of union members (hereinafter “instant service contract”).
B. The lower court’s determination is recognized that the instant union entered into the instant service contract and paid the expenses therefrom, but the service charges that were disbursed under the instant service contract were determined as the budget of the ordinary general meeting of shareholders on February 24, 2012.