A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for five months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A From May 1, 2006, with respect to the development and improvement project for the F Housing Redevelopment (hereinafter “instant project”), from May 1, 2006, 331 land and buildings owners (hereinafter “owners of land, etc.”) in the above improvement zone were working as the primary chairperson of “G” (hereinafter “resident representatives’ meeting of this case”) which is the representative representative body organized under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and Defendant B was working as the primary vice-chairperson from the same date.

On the other hand, around November 15, 2007, 192 owners, such as H, filed an application for permission to convene a plenary meeting of temporary residents with the resident representatives' meeting of this case as the principal of the case with Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch (hereinafter "court") around November 15, 2007, and the court on January 8, 2008 against the applicant "1. The case of dismissal of the chairperson;

2. Cases of dismissal of all members of the resident representatives' meeting, including Vice-Chairperson B and I for audit;

3. Cases for the appointment of a new resident representatives’ meeting and a representative member;

4. A decision was made to convene a meeting of the temporary residents of the F Housing Redevelopment temporary for the purpose of the meeting “the revision of the Operating Rules of the Resident Representatives’ Meeting.”

Accordingly, the Defendants are likely to be dismissed at the temporary residents’ general meeting convened according to the court’s above permit decision, and the Defendants conspired to hold a separate temporary residents’ general meeting consisting of the same agenda for the purpose of the meeting prior to the holding of the temporary residents’ general meeting pursuant to the court’s decision, and then, to reject the Defendants’ dismissal agenda by holding a separate temporary residents’ general meeting with the same agenda for the purpose of the meeting, and in violation of the duty to manage the affairs for the interests of the whole owners, including the land as the representative members of the residents of this case, and thus, there is no need to hold a separate temporary residents’ general meeting on January 11, 2008.