Article 24(3)5 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 13912, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “former Act”). Article 24(3)5 of the same Act provides that “a contract that will become a partner, other than the matters prescribed in the budget, shall be subject to the resolution of a general meeting.” Article 85 Subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that “executives of an association that voluntarily promotes the projects under the subparagraphs of Article 24(3) shall be punished without the resolution of a general meeting under Article 24.”

“Resolution by the general meeting under Article 24” under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Act means, in principle, a prior resolution by the general meeting. Therefore, if an executive officer of a union concluded a contract to become a partner in addition to the matters set forth in the budget without prior resolution by the general meeting, the crime against Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Act is established.

On the other hand, the crime of this case cannot be deemed to have been committed retroactively on the ground that the time of the establishment of the crime was determined later at the general meeting or that the ratification resolution was made later at the general meeting (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14296, Jun. 24, 2010, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants of the facts charged in this case that the Defendants conspired all or part of the Defendants to enter into the “building design standard contract”, “legal advice and solicitation lawsuit, etc.,” and “the current survey contract of the current status of the O Housing Redevelopment Project,” respectively, in addition to the matters stipulated in the budget without the resolution of the general meeting of the members.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegation in the grounds of appeal.