beta
Text
Defendant
A KRW 5 million, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant C, D, and E, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A was in office as the head of H from April 13, 2016 to June 30, 2018. Defendant B was in office as the head of H military sports facility establishment from January 12, 2017, and Defendant C was in office as the chief of H military sports facility establishment from July 4, 2016 to July 3, 2017. Defendant D was in office as the chief of the sports facility in charge of the above business establishment from July 4, 2016 to July 3, 2017. Defendant E was in office as the chief of the sports facility in charge of the above business establishment from July 4, 2016 to July 3, 2017. Defendant E was in office as the chief of the sports facility in charge of the above business establishment from July 4, 2016 to the above business establishment.
H Around September 22, 2015, the victim I was the representative, and the victim J concluded an agreement with K (hereinafter “K”) which is an incorporated association for the operation of the L Sports Center, and entrusted the operation and management of the L Sports Center (hereinafter “sports center”) to K. However, as a civil petition requesting H to operate the sports center directly, due to inconvenience in the use of the sports center, the sports center was resolved to suspend the entrusted operation of the sports center by holding a sports facility management and operation committee around October 14, 2016.
After November 7, 2016, by notifying K of the termination of the Convention in the name of the head of H on November 7, 2016, the sports center's possession and operation rights are required to be returned to H group. However, K has no effect on the termination of the Convention.
Defendant B, who is a person in charge of the affairs related to the sports center, refused to return the sports center by asserting that it is not likely that K would return the sports center voluntarily at the end of discussions with Defendant C, D, etc. who is a public official belonging to the sports facility establishment.
In this regard, compulsory execution from advisory attorney-at-law can bring about a problem in the future because the legal basis is weak.In this regard, compulsory execution from advisory attorney-at-law can bring a civil lawsuit because it is not possible to bring a problem in the future.