The defendant shall be innocent.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

① While the Defendant was ordered to suspend the removal works, the Defendant did not continue to perform the removal works in collusion with Nonindicted 3, the president of the cooperative of the Seoe 2 District Maintenance and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter the instant cooperative). ② Nonindicted Co. 2 is a specialized management businessman for the improvement project in the Seoe 2 District of the instant cooperative, and the Defendant is a person in charge of the improvement project in the Seoe 2 District of the instant cooperative, or the removal work goes beyond the scope of the service management contract between the instant cooperative and Nonindicted Co. 2, and thus is not responsible for the Defendant, and ③ the Defendant was notified to the cooperative several times after being ordered to suspend the removal from Gangseo-gu office, and thus, he did not receive punishment on the ground that he did not comply with the order to suspend the removal. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Residents because he did not comply with the order to suspend the removal. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Article 48 (1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "When the period for application for parcelling-out under Article 46 of the Act expires, the project implementer shall establish a management and disposal plan based on the current status of application for parcelling-out under Article 46 of the Act before removing an existing building under the conditions as prescribed by the Act." Article 69 of the Act provides that "the project implementer shall obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun before he/she removes the existing building." The scope of the project implementer's business scope shall be delegated to vicariously execute the business of giving consent to the establishment of an association, examine the feasibility of the project and the maintenance and improvement project, prepare the implementation plan on the application for authorization for the establishment of an association, vicariously execute the business of designating the designer and the contractor, examine the implementation of the management and disposal plan, examine the changes in the construction cost and other matters requested by the association among the affairs of the association, and shall not comply with the order to suspend or suspend the construction or improvement project."

B. On the other hand, if the defendant's statement, non-indicted 4, non-indicted 6's testimony, non-indicted 3, 6, and 5's statement as to the defendant, the non-indicted 2's professional management services contract (consulting page 30) attached to the non-indicted 2's investigation records, the non-indicted 3, the head of the non-indicted 2's association, the head of the non-indicted 2's association of 103-1 and 34 lots of land maintenance business, entered into a contract for construction of the above improvement business with the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2's order for removal of the building and the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 2's order for removal of the building and the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2's order for removal of the building and the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2's order for removal of the construction work

C. According to the above facts, the Defendant cannot be punished on the ground that the Defendant, who is a specialized manager of the rearrangement project, was the final and overall responsible manager for the overall removal of the removal project, including the removal project, or was given instructions and supervision authority to implement or suspend the removal project to the removal project operator, and the Defendant did not appear to have continued the removal project in collusion with Non-Indicted 3 with the head of the association. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be punished on the ground that he did not comply with the order even though the Defendant was issued an order to suspend the removal of the erobbs No. 2 apartment in the erobs Nos. 2, which are the object of the rearrangement project in the erobsive area 2 zone on the ground that he was not issued by the head of Gangseo-gu having jurisdiction over December 2004

Thus, since the facts charged in this case fall under a case where there is no proof of crime and must be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below which made a different conclusion is unfair and the defendant's assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act without considering the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing, and the following decision shall be

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) Nonindicted 3 is the head of the Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul and the head of the cooperative association for the maintenance and improvement project of Yedong 1003-1 and 34 lots of ground improvement project; (b) the defendant is the person in charge of the above improvement project of the non-indicted 2 corporation; and (c) the non-indicted 2 is the specialized manager of the maintenance and improvement project of the above improvement project, which entered into a specialized service management contract with the above Yeeeeeeee 2 District Maintenance and Improvement Project Association; (d) the project implementer and specialized manager of the maintenance and improvement project must comply with the order of the suspension and alteration of the improvement project works by the relevant authorities; (e) the defendant in collusion with the non-indicted 3 around December 2004 and January 11, 2005; (e) the head of Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government Office did not comply with the above order of suspension of construction works and heating pipes for the above 2 apartment.

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)