도시및주거환경정비법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal in this case is that the agreement on the combined development and improvement project and the agreement on the selection of service companies at issue is concluded on condition that the resolution by the general meeting of the association members becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charges in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the term “a contract, other than the matters prescribed by the budget, is not a “contract that becomes a partner’s burden” as prescribed by Article 2
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined evidence in the judgment on the grounds for appeal, namely, ① the E association, the Defendant, who is in charge of the president of the association (hereinafter “instant association”), shall hold a board of representatives on June 29, 2012 to select a service company with a bid price of KRW 1.98 million for combined development and select a service company as a private investment association I, and then enter into a service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) by agreement with the private investment association I on the contents of the service business, time limit, and price, etc. In light of the following circumstances: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23800, Apr. 14, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20688, Feb. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20680, Feb. 23, 2016>