Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.2 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the head of the E reconstruction and consolidation project association located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

Where an owner, such as a cooperative member or a land, requests perusal or reproduction of documents and related materials concerning the implementation of an improvement project, the executive officers of the cooperative shall comply with such request within 15 days.

Nevertheless, on June 12, 2015, with respect to the increased amount of revenue and expenditure from the estimated amount of expenses incurred in the association at the seventh regular meeting of April 23, 2011 by mail proving the contents from the owner F of the land, etc. at the above partnership office, the Defendant requested a copy of the sales contract, the deposit amount of the passbook, the payment document for the items of expenditure, and the payment document for the items of the passbook, but did not comply with the request within 15 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes verifying contents;

1. Article 86 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, Article 86 and Article 81 (6) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine;

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was sentenced to a fine on several occasions for violating the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments after being elected as the president of the partnership, and in particular, was sentenced to a summary order or judgment on the charge of failing to comply with the request for perusal of documents and relevant materials, but did not again comply with the request for reproduction in this case.

Despite such multiple punishments, the fact that the defendant again committed the crime of this case indicates that the defendant has a minor obligation under the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are that F and G frequently requested for the perusal of data from the time before the instant case, and that the Defendant appears to send a copy of the data to F at latest after the instant case, etc.