The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part added by the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) as stated in the facts charged was omitted in the minutes, even though it was a resolution passed by the occupant representative meeting on April 15, 2014, and was additionally stated by the occupant representative meeting on June 30, 2014.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one million won suspension of sentence) is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, first of all, we examine the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the part added by the Defendant as described in the facts charged, namely, “if a single company has all aspects of the construction with the ability to perform the construction work, it shall be entered into several contracts”; and (b) the matters resolved at the occupant’s representative meeting on April 15, 2014.

According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the Defendant presented his/her opinion at the occupant representative meeting held on April 15, 2014 to conclude a number of contracts where the bidder is one in relation to the apartment waterproof construction works, and the fact that the Defendant and the three representative representatives agreed to the above opinion is recognized.

However, according to the recording of the above representative meeting, there was no resolution procedure on it, and rather, following the above remarks by the defendant, the chief of the management office stated that "at present, three companies will be present during the re-tender public notice, and one company will be present at the re-tender public notice, and one company should not be able to know about.

Two companies have attended;

On the other hand, it is confirmed that the statement "(105 pages of investigation record No. 105) was made to select a company with two companies."

In addition, the Defendant entered into several contracts on behalf of the representative meeting of the occupants of the instant case with the O Co., Ltd. on May 8, 2014 regarding waterproof construction of the instant apartment.