The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

B above.

Defendant

B is a person who operates a F Hospital in the E building located in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and the defendant A is a person who serves as a secretary of the F Hospital.

1. On October 5, 2013, Defendant B, at around 13:06, destroyed and damaged a written announcement attached to the elevator entrance by the victim G, the chairperson of the emergency countermeasure committee for building in the above E, Defendant B, at his discretion.

2. On October 5, 2013, Defendant A: (a) around 14:27, Defendant A removed a notice posted by the said victim inside the entrance wall of the elevator and the elevator, and damaged it.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal facts of No. 1】

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant B concerning the police officer

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Statement of complaint (criminal facts under Article 2 at the time of sale);

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant A by the police;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Defendants of relevant legal principles concerning criminal facts: Article 366 (Selection of Fine for Negligence)

1. Defendant A to be suspended of sentence: Fines of 300,000 won;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. As to the defendant A suspended sentence: Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act [All the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the fact that the defendant A has no criminal record at all, other crimes, attitudes, degree of damage, etc.];

1. Defendant B of the provisional payment order: Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Defendant A and the defense counsel asserted that the instant public notice was an illegal notice that interferes with the work of the F Hospital working for Defendant A, and thus Defendant A removed it. Thus, the said act is not contrary to the social norms, and thus,

However, according to evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the public notice of this case is entitled to remove it directly without due process, such as illegally posted materials, or Defendant A's demand for removal to a legitimate management authority.