The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who works as a liquidator of the I Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter the instant association) from January 2012 to the present date.

A liquidator of a cooperative shall make public the documents and data related to the implementation of a rearrangement project, such as the details of monthly deposits and withdrawals, along with the Internet and other methods, within 15 days after the preparation of such documents and data.

Nevertheless, even if the Defendant received a request from the J around September 27, 2016 to disclose the above data, the Defendant did not disclose the current status of the liquidator’s business process and the details of monthly deposit and withdrawal from January 201 to August 31, 2016 by both the Internet and other means.

B. Interpretation of the penal laws and regulations of the court below should be strict, and excessively expanded or analogically interpreted to the disadvantage of the defendant is not permitted as it violates the principle of statutoryism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1428, Oct. 13, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5410, Feb. 8, 2002). In addition, Article 81(1) of the current Act on Urban and Residential Environment Improvement and Dwelling Conditions without the law applicable to the facts charged in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “Act without the law of the city”), which provides that “the person liable to perform the duty to prepare or make public the documents and materials concerning the implementation of the rearrangement project, and the meaning of the provision of the express language is against the principle of statutoryism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do1428, Oct. 13, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do13910, Feb. 1, 20199).