When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

No person shall interfere with the preparation, posting, posting, or installation of posters, placards or other propaganda facilities under the Public Official Election Act, or damage or remove them without any justifiable reason.

Nevertheless, at around 12:22 on April 6, 2020, the Defendant damaged the 21st election banner of a candidate for the 21st election campaign, D party E, a candidate, set up in the Daegu Seo-gu, Seo-gu, by cutting off the linked knife, which is bound by the left side of the said banner, on the ground that it is not possible to see it as a pule whenever it is wind.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged posters, placards and other propaganda facilities under the Public Official Election Act without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each report on internal investigation (Evidence Nos. 18, 19);

1. Relevant Article 240 (1) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 240 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences by law: Fines of 50,000 to 4,000,000; and

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not be set.

3. The instant crime, which determined the sentence, is not easy in that the Defendant damages the banner of a candidate for an election of a National Assembly member without justifiable grounds, and that such crime would enhance the elector’s right to know, the fairness of election, and the efficiency of election management.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

The fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime and reflects his mistake, that the defendant does not seem to have damaged the banner with the intention of influencing the election, or interfering with the election campaign, and that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.