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

The defendant was a person working as the director of the Seo-gu Seoul apartment management office in Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, the apartment election management commission, and the organization of the election management commission itself was considered to be illegal.

On December 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) knew of the fact that D (Nam, 73 years of age) who is the chairman of the above apartment management committee attached a public notice of the election of the representative of the apartment unit under the name of the chairman of the above apartment management committee, 103, 104, 107, 109, and 109, on the elevator bulletin board, and, with the aim of obstructing the election affairs of the above election management commission, issued an instruction to remove the above public notice to the head of E office of apartment security business E, who is unaware of such fact by using the position of the head of apartment management office; (b) caused G, an apartment security guard, to collect and discard all four copies attached as above, thereby obstructing the election affairs of the representative of the apartment unit by force of the election management commission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police statement of H (including D's statement);

1. Application of the F's factual confirmation, D's request, and each of the Acts and subordinate statutes described in D's written questioning;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

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

1. The punishment is determined as ordered by taking account of various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, including the passive act that removes the public notice of the attitude of the defendant's obstruction of business for sentencing in Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant has no criminal records since 1989, the defendant recognized and reflects the defendant's crime, and the defendant was aged and lost from the position of the management office due to the crime of this case.