If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

No one shall damage posters under the Public Official Election Act without justifiable grounds.

On December 5, 2012, at around 09:30 on December 5, 2012, the Defendant damaged the poster by walking three times the poster of the C candidate at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City superintendent’s office of education, which is an election-related propaganda facility installed in the B wall in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged posters established under the Public Official Election Act without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A damaged poster and photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (or monetary reporting to the Chief Director of the Gwangjin-gu Election Commission), an investigation report (or a report on the relative confirmation of a police officer arrested an

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

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with the provisional payment order is that the defendant damages campaign posters without any justifiable reason, and the crime is not easy in light of the purpose of the Public Official Election Act to protect the fairness of election and the freedom of election campaign.

In addition to such unfavorable circumstances, the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment except for a fine imposed once due to the violation of the Resident Registration Act, and was sentenced to punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the name of the candidate on the poster was merely the same as the name of the person who did not refuse to do so, and that the Defendant was committed contingently for the same reason as the name of the person who did not want to do so.