logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.14 2016고단125
업무상배임등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was a person who served as the president of the redevelopment and consolidation project association from February 25, 201 to December 17, 2012.

1. Except as otherwise provided for in the budget for the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the executives of a cooperative that promotes a contract to become a partner shall undergo resolution

Nevertheless, around January 27, 2012, the Defendant entered into a service contract with the H Research Institute operated by G without the resolution of the general meeting, which requires the said Research Institute to refund the infrastructure charges paid to the Dongdaemun-gu Office in accordance with the former Infrastructure Charges Act on December 28, 2007, and to pay 50% out of the above refunds to the said Research Institute.

Accordingly, the defendant arbitrarily concluded a contract to become a partner in addition to the matters set forth in the budget without the resolution of the general meeting.

2. On May 11, 2012 in accordance with the above service contract, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 560,319,480 from the Dongdaemun-gu Office to the victim, the Dongdaemun-gu Office, in return for one-lane 560,319,480 of the above infrastructure charges paid by the said association to the Dongdaemun-gu Office, and remitted KRW 308,175,714 to the bank account in the name of the said research institute for service costs

However, the above service contract was invalid since it was not subject to the resolution of the general meeting even though it was a contract that will be a member of the association, other than the matters stipulated in the budget as above. On July 3, 2012, the defendant received an audit report from an I corporation, an external auditor of the above union, that the above service contract was abnormal contractual terms and conditions, and received an audit report from the JJ of the above union around the 17th of the same month that the above service contract was concluded with an excessive agreement without sufficient review.

Therefore, the defendant is above the Dongdaemun-gu Office.

arrow