The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the purport of the grounds for appeal (amended by Act No. 14113, Mar. 30, 2017; hereinafter “the Act”) and the contents and structure of the provisions of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the request for supplementation of viewing by audience, etc., the modification of the rearrangement project cost shall be deemed to fall under the resolution of a general meeting of union members without relation to “matters imposing economic burdens on union members.” In addition, since the resolution of the general meeting is effective only when the resolution is made in advance, and the defendant reports the modification of the maintenance project cost without the prior resolution of the general meeting, it constitutes “ arbitrarily promoting the project without going through the procedures prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of incorporation,” the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged in this case or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court’s judgment stipulated that ① “other matters necessary to determine important matters, such as matters imposing economic burdens on the association members, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree or the articles of incorporation” as one of the matters subject to resolution by the general meeting under Article 24(3)12 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions shall be prescribed as one of the matters subject to resolution by the general meeting under Article 34(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, and the “change of the rearrangement project cost” shall be construed as the matters subject to resolution by the general meeting so that the officers may arbitrarily increase the project cost so that their intent can be reflected in order to prevent the increase of the association members