Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The Defendant, while holding office as the chairperson of the apartment election management committee B, commissioned C, D, and E as an election management member on February 22, 2017. However, the victim F, etc., a member of the existing election management committee, delivered a public notice of holding the election management committee to promote C, etc. as a mail, and had the intent to conceal the said mail.

On March 3, 2017, at around 18:10 on March 3, 2017, the Defendant arbitrarily concealed four items of public announcement for holding meetings of the Election Management Committee for the victim FF, victim G, victim H, and victim I, which were kept by the said apartment security guards by taking advantage of the gaps in the nearby surveillance room in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment management engine room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as at the sixth public trial date);

1. Each police statement to J or K;

1. Each explanatory note (No. 49,50 once a year);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as public announcement of holding the above conference (No. 82 once a year);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that the act recorded in the judgment is a justifiable act. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below are sufficient to dispute the existence and validity of the meeting of the relevant election management commission, namely, a subsequent meeting of the election management commission, the representatives of occupants, or legal disputes. Thus, it is difficult to view the defendant's act as a justifiable act, since there is no urgent circumstance to the extent that the defendant should arbitrarily conceal another's postal item.

Defendant

We cannot accept the assertion of defense counsel.

(Interference with Business Affairs)

1. At will four items of public announcement of holding meetings of the Election Management Committee as stated in the summary of the facts charged.