The defendant is the representative of 106 Dong-dong apartment C, Namyang-si, and the victim D is the representative of the tenant of the above apartment.

The Defendant, around January 29, 2015, at the above C Apartment 106 3-4 Rara around 2015, in order for the damaged party to publicly notify the occupants of the results of the meeting of occupants in accordance with the management rules, removed a notice of the "representative minutes of occupants" attached on the bulletin board and the inside bulletin board of the apartment and the elevator. On the same day, around 30 days, the Defendant removed the above notice notice posted by the victim on the front bulletin board and the elevator internal bulletin board and the elevator internal bulletin board and damaged the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. CCTV photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each complainants;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 300,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of a justifiable act as to Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (the written public notice of this case is a public notice of the result of the tenant representative meeting without the signature of the representative, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances that lead to the crime of this case in the process of stating and opposing that the defendant's act is unreasonable, and there are no other criminal records except that the defendant has been punished once by a fine) of the Criminal Code. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the written public notice of this case was unfair because they posted it in violation of the procedures for the resident representative meeting without the seal of the representative, etc., and that the defendant was directly removed to prevent the defendant from transmitting the error to the residents. Thus,

According to the records of this case, there are problems, such as the defendant and his defense counsel, in the written notice of this case.