Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the head of the F Resource Development Association in Seongbuk-gu Seoul.

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

Nevertheless, on May 18, 2012, the Defendant entered into a public relations service contract at the National Assembly of Korea (F&C Co., Ltd.) with the amount of KRW 36.4 million at the above redevelopment association office around May 18, 2012, for the F&C Co., Ltd. and service amount of KRW 36.4 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement concerning G;

1. Article 85 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the selection of punishment and Article 24 (3) 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the cooperative did not separately compile the budget of 2012 for a public relations service contract for the instant “F Housing Redevelopment and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents” (hereinafter “instant public relations service contract”), but the temporary residents’ meeting on December 20, 2010 passed a resolution on the budget for the general assembly operation expenses. Based on the above, the defendant concluded the public relations service contract of this case. As the above contract constitutes “matters stipulated in the budget,” it does not constitute “a contract that becomes a partner's burden, other than the matters stipulated in the budget,” and ② the approval of the budget for the public relations service contract of this case was approved at the ordinary meeting of June 5, 2012, and ③ the public relations service contract of this case was dealt with by the council of representatives, and ④ the defendant did not have any intention to violate the above Act.

2. Determination

(a) The budget referred to in Article 24 (3) 5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.