The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the overall regulatory structure of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, Article 81(1)2 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 13912, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) provides that “documents to be disclosed are “documents concerning the implementation of a rearrangement project” and “a contract for the selection of service companies, such as a designer, contractor, removal contractor, and a specialized management contractor,” the term “contract for the implementation of a rearrangement project” refers to a contract for the selection of a designer, a contractor or an appraisal business entity, or a specialized management contractor, who is directly responsible for the implementation of a rearrangement project through the selection procedure.

On December 7, 2015, the Defendant, as the president of the D/D renewal promotion zone housing redevelopment and maintenance project (hereinafter “the instant association”), concluded each of the instant association’s general business services contract and the general business services contract for the appointment of executive officers of the association, and on January 8, 2016, each of the instant association’s general business services contract for the re-general business affairs (hereinafter “each of the instant services contract”) with the general meeting of association and the re-general business affairs for the appointment of executive officers of the association. Each of the instant services contract is not a contract with the service company in charge of the implementation of the rearrangement project, but is not a contract with the service company selected according to the selection procedure, and is merely a service contract related to the one-time business to assist the progress of the general meeting. The instant services contract does not constitute a contract for the selection of the service company for the implementation of the rearrangement project as stipulated in Article 81(1)2 of the Urban Community Act to be disclosed.

must be viewed.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection contract under Article 81 (1) 2 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.