The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant, on June 5, 2012, did not intend to violate the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) by setting out the purpose and content of the “general assembly agency service contract” to be concluded in the future at the general meeting of the association and setting out outline the degree of the burden to be borne by its members, thereby going through the prior resolution of the general meeting.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court which was unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and judgment of the court of original judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged is the president of the redevelopment association in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

In addition to the matters prescribed by the redevelopment association's budget, a contract to become a partner shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting.

Nevertheless, at the above redevelopment association office around June 2014 without the resolution of the general meeting, the defendant entered into a "service agreement on behalf of the general meeting" of F representative director G and 125,400,000 won (a separate value-added tax).

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) only decided to set KRW 300 million at the general meeting of the association held on June 5, 2012 at the expense of two general meetings and two special general meetings; (b) the purpose and content of the service contract for the above general meeting to be promoted by the association, and the degree of the union members’ burden to be borne by the association; and (c) the Defendant concluded, without a prior resolution of the general meeting, the “contract that will be borne by union members other than the matters stipulated in the budget” without a prior resolution of the general meeting.

(2) The defendant is recognized as the president of the partnership in 201.