Defendant 1 and one other

Lee Jong-seok (Court) (Court of Second Instance), Yang Jae-in (Court of Second Instance)

LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jin-woo et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,500,000 and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

In the event that the defendants did not pay the above fine, the defendants shall be confined in the old house for a period of 10,000 won converted into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1 is the president of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment Improvement Association, and Defendant 2 is the general secretary of the above association.

1. Violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents;

Where executive officers of a cooperative use rearrangement project costs and enter into a contract to become a partner's burden, they shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting of partners.

Nevertheless, on July 7, 2014, the Defendants, without going through the resolution of the general meeting of the members of the association, lent KRW 725 million out of the rearrangement project cost to Nonindicted 3 to the above association offices located in Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), and around July 29, 2014, lent KRW 650 million out of the rearrangement project cost to Nonindicted 4 to the association members.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to use the rearrangement project cost without the resolution of the general meeting of the association members, and concluded a contract to become a partner's burden in addition to the matters prescribed in the budget.

2. Violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents;

Where a member requests to peruse and copy documents and related materials concerning the implementation of a rearrangement project, the chairperson of the promotion committee or the executive officers of the association shall comply with such request within 15 days.

Nevertheless, on November 21, 2014, the Defendants did not comply with the request within 15 days after receiving a request for perusal and copying of the monthly project expenses from Nonindicted Party 1, the construction contract agreement between the union and Nonindicted Company 3, the list of union members, etc. in the above partnership office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted) Seongdong-gu.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Investigation protocol of Defendant 1 by the prosecution (the defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 1 who is the complainant)

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. Complaint;

1. The case of the franchise disclosure request meeting, investigation report (Submission of the book of the general meeting in 2014), copy of the contract on collateral security, list of the joint collateral for collateral for collateral security, current status of lending Nonindicted 3 lease deposit, register of real estate register (Nonindicted 3), register of real estate register (Nonindicted 4's land, building), association articles of association, minutes of the general meeting in 2014, minutes of the board of directors in 2014, minutes of the board of directors in 52, records of execution of loans for moving expenses in 40, list of persons who lack relocation expenses, list of Nonindicted 3's interest and moving expenses (the current status of

[Judgment as to Defendant and Defense Counsel]

1. As to the assertion that the resolution at a general meeting is unnecessary

A. Summary of the assertion

On September 21, 2012, at the ordinary meeting of the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Association (hereinafter “instant association”) for the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Association (hereinafter “instant association”), 6 billion won out of the project expenses was decided as “reserve fund” for the purpose of “preparation of expenses, such as delayed delay,” and Article 28 of the articles of association of the instant association provides for “matters concerning the budget and ordinary affairs of the association” and “other matters necessary for the operation of the association and the implementation of the project of the association” as the affairs of the board of directors. Each of the instant loans contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant loans contracts”) written in the facts charged do not constitute a “contract that imposes a burden on union members except as otherwise provided for in the budget” under Article 24(3)5 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. Determination

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 “the executives of a union that voluntarily promotes the projects provided for in 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 determined by the State or an organization in advance by means of the revenue and expenditure of one fiscal year.” Meanwhile, the accounts of a cooperative and the timing for convening a general meeting should be included in the articles of association of the cooperative pursuant to Article 20(1)5 of the Urban Improvement Act. If so, “budget” under Article 24(3)5 of the Urban Improvement Act refers to “a plan for revenue and expenditure of one fiscal year prescribed by the articles of association of the cooperative” (see Constitutional Court Decision 2012Hun-Ba390, 2014Hun-Ba15, May 29, 2014). Thus, insofar as the requirements of the budget are not satisfied, it cannot be deemed “budget” under Article 24(3)5 of the Urban Improvement Act, which is the cost of a rearrangement project, including construction cost, in the course of implementing the rearrangement project by the cooperative, even if there is a lack of the resolution of the general meeting under the pretext of the budget as project cost (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do484, May 2014, 2014).

According to the above evidence, the articles of association of the instant association stipulate one fiscal year from January 1 to the end of December each year, and the resolution at the general meeting of the instant association on September 21, 2012 is related to the establishment of a management and disposal plan under Article 24(3)10 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, and the “reserve fund” asserted by the Defendants is only a part of the “amount of the necessary amount in estimation” in the table of “amount of the maintenance and improvement project cost and the amount and timing of the partner’s burden” attached to the above management and disposal plan. It can be known that the association’s budget of the instant case was not reflected in each of the loan contracts of this case in the annual budget of 2014.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the “reserve fund” budget asserted by the Defendants is merely an estimated amount of expenditure for rearrangement project costs established in the course of promoting a rearrangement project. Accordingly, each of the instant loan contracts concluded by the instant association cannot be deemed an income and expenditure plan for the fiscal year 2014. As such, each of the instant loan contracts not reflected in the annual budget of the instant association for fiscal year 2014 constitutes “a contract that imposes a burden on its members, other than the matters stipulated in the budget,” and the Defendants’ act of entering into each of the instant loan contracts without going through a resolution of the general meeting of the instant association is subject to punishment under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Urban Improvement Act.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

2. As to the assertion that all requests for access to and copying of materials were complied with

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants disclosed and provided all the information requested by Non-Party 1 to the members. However, it cannot be determined as to whether Non-Party 1’s member demanded the submission of data to a third party, who is not the member himself/herself, and requested the non-Party 1 to receive the data directly or to receive the data by mail, and Non-Party 1 became to provide the information by e-mail on December 12, 2014, where Non-Party 1 knew his/her e-mail address. The omitted “the details of deposits and withdrawals on October 2014,” which was omitted at the time of the provision of information, was merely a failure to provide the Defendants with the relevant data due to the delay in the business of the tax accounting corporation in charge of managing the details of monthly deposits and withdrawals of the funds of the instant union.

B. Determination

According to the aforementioned evidence, Nonindicted 1’s member delegated the right to receive information from Nonindicted 5 to the attorney-at-law in preparing, sending, and disclosing a written request for information disclosure, and requested the provision of information by attaching the power of attorney. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to acknowledge delay of the tax accounting corporation’s business as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendants: Article 85 subparag. 5, Article 24(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of implementing the project without a resolution of a general meeting), Article 86 subparag. 6, Article 81(6) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of refusing to peruse

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Kim Jong-soo