Defendant’s innocence;

1. The summary of the facts charged is the occupant of multi-family housing as the chairperson of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment management committee.

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant was requested by the occupant D and 255 members of the above apartment complex to proceed with the procedure of dismissal for E by the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives, but did not take necessary measures despite the Defendant’s receipt of a corrective order from the office of the above C apartment election commission to “the procedure of dismissal is underway, and the result is submitted by August 20, 2013,” such as “the reason for dismissal and the materials submitted by the dismissed party should be disclosed to the occupants in advance, and the voting procedure is in progress against the occupants.”

2. Article 98 Subparag. 12 of the Housing Act provides that, in order to punish a person on the ground that he/she has violated this Act or an order issued under this Act by an administrative agency to take corrective measures, such corrective measures should be lawful, and as long as such corrective measures are deemed unlawful, a violation of Article 98 Subparag. 12 of the said Act is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do824, Jun. 25, 2009). Article 91 of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 1215, Dec. 24, 2013) provides that, “The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the head of a local government may order the suspension of construction, the management authority for occupants and users of multi-family housing, the council of occupants’ representatives, or the housing remodeling association of multi-family housing violates this Act or any order issued under this Act, the former head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu may order the restoration of the road to its original state, according to the records of the instant case.