When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

From January 30, 2016, the Defendant is in office as the president of the Gangnam-gu Association for Reconstruction of Apartment Housing (hereinafter “instant association”) from around January 30, 2016.

In addition to the matters prescribed in the budget, a housing reconstruction and improvement project association shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting comprised of its members in order to conclude a contract to become a partner.

Nevertheless, around April 20, 2016, the Defendant, at the instant association office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concluded a service agreement with the representative director H on the “crime prevention and resettlement management services during the E apartment reconstruction improvement project” (hereinafter “instant contract”) as the total contract amount of KRW 1,290,000,000 (a value added tax is separate) without going through a resolution of the general meeting of the association members.

Accordingly, the defendant entered into a contract to become a partner's burden other than the matters prescribed in the budget without going through the resolution of the general meeting of partners.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of I by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor to J and K in the prosecution;

1. Application of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the filing of a complaint, service contract, the data collection of the annual meeting in 2015, and the annual meeting in 2016;

1. Article 85 Subparag. 5 and Article 24 Subparag. 3 Subparag. 5 of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) on criminal facts and Articles 85 Subparag. 5 and 24 Subparag. 3 Subparag. 5 (Determination of penalty) (hereinafter “former Act”).

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the first offender, the defendant seems to have mistakenly understood the provisions of the relevant law, the fact that the instant case does not seem to have sought private benefits, and other circumstances shown in the records and arguments of the instant case shall be determined as ordered by taking into account.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. Defendant’s assertion No. 1