The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (1) AD Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant partnership”) opened an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “general meeting of this case,”) on November 22, 2009, to select a F comprehensive architect office and G architect office as a business entity for construction management (CM), which bid the contract amount of KRW 1.97 million, as a general meeting of this case. During that process, the purpose and content of the contract, the bid amount, etc. were clearly indicated, and entered into a service contract with the above architect within the scope of the tender amount expressed, the Defendant had concluded a service contract with the above architect by setting the contract amount of KRW 1.9 billion as the contract amount, and the Defendant was subject to prior resolution at a general meeting of shareholders under Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act (hereinafter “Urban Community Act”).

(2) On March 12, 2012, the Defendant, as the president of the instant association, instructed a private person M to post all contracts, including the contract for the modification of the improvement plan for D Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant improvement plan service contract”) written between H around March 12, 2012, including the contract for the modification of the improvement plan for D Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant improvement service contract”), on the Internet page of the association. However, M did not disclose the contract by negligence, and the Defendant did not intentionally disclose the contract.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the resolution of the general meeting under the law of the city, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty to disclose after the preparation or modification of the contract for the selection of service companies, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing unfair Defendant selected a construction management (CM) service company through a resolution of its members, and clarified the bid amount at the time of opening the general meeting of this case.