Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant served as the chairperson of the Busan B Housing Reconstruction Improvement Project Promotion Committee from July 18, 2009, and was elected as the head of the partnership’s inaugural general meeting on September 9, 2013, and served as the head of the partnership from January 1, 2014 to April 27, 2018.

Contracts to be borne by members, other than matters prescribed in the budget, shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting.

Nevertheless, on May 27, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with D and D to delegate a claim for sale with D and D fees of KRW 130 million without going through a resolution of the general meeting of the association members in the above partnership office located in the Nam-gu Busan metropolitan apartment commercial building. On October 29 of the same year, the Defendant paid D and D KRW 130 million with the funds of the association.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement of each police statement of E;

1. Public announcement of holding an inaugural general meeting, holding an extraordinary general meeting of the establishment of the association, the persons responsible for the books of the inaugural general meeting for the establishment of the association, minutes of the seven board of directors, abstract copies of the board of representatives held on August 8, 2014, and summary of minutes of the second meeting of the board of representatives held in 2014;

1. The Defendant asserts that a contract for appointment of a lawyer was entered into without a prior resolution of the general meeting in relation to a claim for sale, a contract for delegation of a claim for sale, a receipt for entrance and withdrawal, and a claim for litigation costs, but this is an urgent cause, and the general meeting was approved ex officio

First of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to the assertion that the defendant could not undergo a prior resolution of the general meeting due to an urgent reason, it cannot be deemed that there was an urgent reason for the defendant to undergo a prior resolution of the general meeting in relation to the appointment of an attorney-at-law, and the exercise of the right to demand sale does not necessarily require an attorney-at-law. In addition, prior to being amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017.