beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants’ executives cannot be recognized due to the nullification of the incorporation of the instant association. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which led to the Defendants’ conviction on the premise that they are officers of the instant association.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged against the Defendants in the judgment of the court below is as follows: Defendant B and Defendant C, the president of the instant association, in collusion with each other, signed a service contract with the members to receive written resolution from the members of the association, which is a service company in the middle of October 2009, and entered into a service contract with the members, which receives written resolution from the members of the association, and on July 2010, it entered into a service contract with the members of the Rabnb SP Co., Ltd., which is a company in the middle of the mid-2010, and entered into a contract with the members of the association to be borne by the members of the association in addition to the matters prescribed in the budget without the resolution of the general
B. Determination of the party deliberation 1) The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”).
In light of the relevant legal principles and provisions of Article 85 subparag. 5, Article 24(3)5, Article 8(1), Article 13, Article 18, and Article 21, even if an association seeking to implement a rearrangement project has obtained authorization, if the association’s establishment disposition becomes invalid and it cannot be deemed that the association under Article 13 of the former Act was established from the beginning, it is reasonable to interpret that the association’s failure to establish, director, or auditor does not constitute an “executive of the association,” which is the subject of a crime of violation of Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Act, and therefore, an association’s act cannot be punished as a violation of Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Act (Supreme Court).