1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents by refusing to disclose materials on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Before the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents was amended by Act No. 11293 on February 1, 2012

c. The term “former Urban Improvement Act” (hereinafter referred to as “former Urban Improvement Act”).

Article 20(3) of the Act provides that where a cooperative intends to amend its articles of association, it shall hold a general meeting to obtain authorization from the head of a Si/Gun with the consent of a majority of its members or at least 2/3 of its members. Here, the approval of the Mayor, etc. is a supplement to the basic act subject to such approval to complete legal effect, and where such approval is not obtained, the amended articles of association shall be null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2006Ma635, Jul. 24, 2007; 2006Ma635, supra)

In addition, Article 24(3)6 of the former Act provides that “the selection and change of the designer of a work executor” shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting, and Article 85(5) of the same Act provides that “the executives of the association who voluntarily promote the projects under the subparagraphs of Article 24(3) shall be punished without the resolution of the general meeting under Article 24.”

In light of the legislative purport of Article 24(3) of the former Act, even if a designer was formally selected through a resolution of the general meeting, special circumstances exist when there is a defect of absence or invalidation.