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

The Defendant was a member of the Election Commission of the Busan Dongdong-gu C Apartment on March 5, 2012, and the Defendant was a member of the Election Commission of the Busan Dong-gu C Apartment on March 5, 2012, from the first floor of the above apartment at around 20:00.

According to the management expenses, the KT Security Team entered into an agreement with the amount of KRW 28 million, but the actual monthly wage is KRW 18 million.

If the 10 million won has taken place anywhere, not only as the former president, but also as if the representative of residents neglected to monitor as the representative of residents, the sees that the tally representative opinion does not have a management regulation. The reasons are as follows: (a) what is the reason why the tally representative opinion is that the tally representative opinion is not a management regulation; and (b) what is the reason why the tally representative opinion and the executive organ’s relationship is that it is not an attempt to assist the embezzlement; and (c) the reason why the tally operated the tally operated bus raises an issue for two months even if it is reasonable to do so; and (d) what is the reason why the tally operated a normal operation for three months is not doubtful from the residents of the relationship with D and C.

According to the data "A person who has obtained approval from an external company and the Director of the Management Office," which does not assist him/her to abandon his/her duties, according to the contents above "A" and "D is as if he/she boomed and violated the management regulations;

D was made available to the residents who have participated in the meeting to keep a document stating the contents of C's spion, etc. and read it.

However, there was no problem in the details of the management expenses execution, and there is no ground for the tenant representative council to examine the budget execution of the management office, and the integrated bus is not a matter of involvement of the tenant representative council, and it is not an affair of the management office, and it is not an affair of the tenant representative council. However, the defendant neglected the inconvenience of the management office due to the care of the victim D with the management office or the contractor and neglected the inconvenience of the residents.