1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 1,500,000 won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

The phrase “other than the matters determined by the budget” as referred to in Article 24(3)5 of the Act refers not only to the items prescribed by the budget but also to the cases where it is not recognized as a legitimate reserve fund expenditure. However, the G Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant association”).

(2) On October 26, 2007, the general meeting of the shareholders and the management and disposal plan set up KRW 6 billion at the reserve fund in 2008 and enforced it within the scope thereof. Since the general meeting of the association members set the unexpected project expenses in relation to the rearrangement project and the general meeting of the association members delegated the authority to carry out the project with the board of representatives, the agreement entered into by the Defendants does not constitute “other than the matters set forth in the budget.” 2) The Defendants delegated the authority to execute the project with respect to certain matters in accordance with the articles of association and the general meeting resolution of the association, and accordingly, delegated the authority to execute the project to the board of representatives, and accordingly, enforced each contract entered in the facts charged in the instant case subject to the resolution of the board of representatives and the board of directors, and obtained the ratification

3) A design change agreement entered into by Defendant A has to promptly handle the design for smooth progress of the business at the time to prevent the larger damage to its members. A contract for eco-friendly certification-related services entered into by Defendant B is a contract for the reduction of its members’ acquisition tax, which will be beneficial to its members. A contract for the transfer of telecommunications facilities imposes the cost on Samsung C&T, a contractor, through a contract, etc., and thus, the said contract does not constitute “a contract that will become a partner’s burden.” The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of one million won).