A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

From June 2014, the Defendant was a person who, from around June 2014, held a post of pastors at the F church affiliated with the E Union (former G church; hereinafter referred to as the “instant church”).

On November 11, 2014, the above association formed an emergency trial bureau on the grounds that the defendant was in transit with H, and decided to dismiss the defendant from the position of a pastor on the same day, and that I sent the defendant to the temporary church of this case as the chairperson of the church of this case.

However, on November 16, 2014, the Defendant, who is dissatisfied with this, held a joint meeting to withdraw from a labor union and passed a resolution to withdraw from the labor union with the consent of 14 members present at the meeting.

① Filing an application for a provisional disposition to confirm the status of a pastor in the Incheon District Court (2014Kahap 10456), but on June 12, 2015, it is difficult to find out whether the resolution of withdrawal on November 16, 2014 was legitimate, and there is a need for the Defendant to temporarily carry out the position of a pastor in the instant church.

The above application is dismissed on the ground that it is difficult to see it, and ② the Seoul Northern District Court filed a suit with the Seoul Northern District Court to confirm the invalidity of the resolution for the temporary dispatch of a party president (2015 Gohap 24311), but there is a serious defect in the dismissal part.

As it is difficult to see that the defendant cannot be deemed a legitimate representative of a church, he/she was dismissed on May 26, 2016. <3> In the case of the disposition (2015Kahap3), the land price that he/she raised against the defendant at the Incheon District Court for the provisional disposition of delivery of real estate and the disposition of the gold that obstructs the activities of a church (2015Kahap3), there is a consent of at least 2/3 of the members with voting rights.

It is difficult to see otherwise, on November 16, 2014, the resolution of withdrawal was partially accepted on the ground that it is reasonable to see that the resolution of withdrawal was null and void, on the grounds that there was no authority to hold a joint meeting of the church on November 16, 2014, and that there was no significant defect in the resolution of withdrawal without excluding the dispatched I, and that there was an objection against the above provisional disposition on September 7, 2015.