1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From around December 29, 2010, the Defendant entered into a service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the head of the C&A (hereinafter “instant association”) with the area located in the Busan J-gu B, etc. located in the Busan J-gu, and with the content that, on December 29, 2014, the Defendant requested service company E (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”) to convene a general meeting and conduct a proceeding to select a contractor, and to pay KRW 258,213,092 (excluding value added tax) at the cost of the relevant service (hereinafter “instant service contract”) without the resolution of the general meeting, even if the office of the instant association located in the third floor of the building located in the Busan J-gu, Busan D-gu, Busan.

As a result, the defendant arbitrarily promoted a contract that imposes a burden on the union members other than the matters set out in the budget without the resolution of the general meeting.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of each protocol concerning the suspect examination of the police against the defendant or F;

2. Statement of the police statement related to G;

3. A written accusation;

4. A copy of the service contract to be selected as a C contractor;

5. Application of each police investigation reporting statute;

1. Relevant Article 137 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 137 subparagraph 6 of the same Act;

2. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. The gist of the assertion presented a written performance statement that the Defendant, prior to the conclusion of the instant service agreement, bided for the construction works of C (hereinafter “instant project”) prior to the conclusion of the instant service agreement (hereinafter “H”), would bear the cost of the instant service agreement, and thereafter, on January 16, 2015, H was selected at the general meeting of the instant association as the contractor and H was fully responsible for the cost of the instant service agreement on February 13, 2015, and thus, it is difficult to deem the instant service agreement to be a contract that imposes a burden on the members.

2. Determination

(a) Article 45(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments;