The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 24(3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017) does not stipulate the timing of resolution at a general meeting.

Punishment of violation of the articles of incorporation at the time of holding a general meeting is against the principle of no punishment without law.

Since the budget was not approved due to extenuating circumstances, the Defendant passed the general meeting resolution on November 3, 2017 after the budget was executed in the quasi-budget within the scope of expenditure in the previous year.

It was inevitable to observe the time of the general meeting stipulated in the articles of incorporation, and it was confirmed ex post facto.

B. Determination of an unreasonable sentencing sentence (the fine of 500,000 won) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 24(3)4 of the Act stipulating “use of rearrangement project costs” as the matter of a general meeting’s resolution on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal violations is to ensure that the use of rearrangement project costs may directly affect the rights and obligations of the union members when used in addition to the budget already passed by the general meeting, and that the intent of the union members can be reflected in such determination.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1202, Jun. 15, 2018). In light of this purport, “resolution by a general meeting” under Article 85 Subparag. 5 of the Act means, in principle, a prior resolution by the general meeting.

Even if the ratification was passed at a later general meeting, the crime already constituted is not committed retroactively.

If the general meeting set forth in the articles of incorporation complies with the time of the general meeting, there is no intention or justifiable reason.

The lower court did not determine that the use of the rearrangement project cost from April 1, 2017 to November 2, 2017 violated Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the Act, but did not constitute a violation of the articles of incorporation.

The defendant asserts that there are unavoidable circumstances that could not hold a general meeting during the period specified in the articles of incorporation.

B Housing redevelopment project partnership on January 2017.