The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Defendant concluded each service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) as shown in the list of crimes attached to the judgment below as the president of the redevelopment association (hereinafter “the instant association”), but the above contract was already established in the budget for the project expenses decided at the extraordinary general meeting of September 11, 2008 of the instant association. The increased amount of the contract at the time of the conclusion of the contract is lawful as the execution of the reserve fund. Thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant concluded a contract that will become a burden on members other than the matters set forth in the budget, and did not go through the resolution of the general meeting.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 24(3)5 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that “a contract that shall become a partner, other than the matters stipulated in the budget, shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting.” Article 85 subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that “an officer of a union who voluntarily promotes the projects under each subparagraph of Article 24(3) without the resolution of the general meeting under Article 24, shall be punished.” However, the prior meaning of “budget” refers to “a plan that is set in advance for revenues and expenditures for one fiscal year by the State or an organization.” Meanwhile, the accounts of the union and the timing for convening the general meeting shall be included in the articles of association pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Urban Improvement Act. Thus, “budget” under Article 24(3)5 of the same Act refers to “a plan for revenues and expenditures for one fiscal year by a union” (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2012Hun-Ba390, 2014Hun-Ba5, May 29, 2014).