Residential Ulsan-gu

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The Defendant is a person who had worked as the president of the reconstruction association from March 12, 2011 to May 4, 2015.

An executive officer of a cooperative under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting to conclude a contract to become a partner.

Nevertheless, on February 16, 2015, the Defendant entered into an architectural design service contract with the director of the Gangseo-gu Partnership Office, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, with the director of the office of the general director of the company in charge of dispute settlement and the director of the office of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Subparagraph 5 of Article 85 and Article 24(3)5 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 13508, Sep. 1, 2015) (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for a design service agreement which provides that the defendant is the head of a cooperative under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the contract amount of KRW 600 million without a resolution of a general meeting. The crime of this case is established for the benefit and rights of the union members, and there is a large amount of crime of disregarding the general meeting resolution procedure, and such liability is also a case before about five years. Furthermore, even though the contract was concluded without the preparation of the contract, it cannot be found that there is an urgent situation where some executives and union members want to take the defendant's preference, and all procedures for the conclusion of the contract are not complied with. On the other hand, there is no history that the defendant was punished in excess of a fine, taking into account the motive and circumstance of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime, the environment of the defendant after the crime, the age of the defendant, the criminal records, and all the conditions of sentencing such as the order.