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

1. The Defendant in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) received 50,000 won per day from E, along with D, the latter, and received instructions from E to 150,00 won per day, which combines female uniforms that the film “WNED, MAD GOVNNENT” and F’s face, to mix the film “abbbbbbbbing sofing sofing” to the end of the film, such as subway, etc.

On October 20, 2014, the Defendant entered the 13th rooftop without the consent of H of the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Building Management Office on October 20, 2014, and intruded into the buildings managed by others by spraying 1950 copies of the above front section.

2. While any person violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act does not spread advertisements, etc. at public places without permission, the Defendant, in collusion with the above D, spread without permission advertisements, etc. at the same time and place as indicated in the preceding paragraph, on the front road of the said building by spraying 1950 leaflets on the front of the said building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D by the prosecution;

1. Application of H’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 3(1)9 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; Article 3(1)9 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; selection of fines

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s act of spraying the leaflet constitutes a justifiable act that is within each protection area as an expression of political intent interest and art that expresses opposing or critical intent to the President and government policies, and that does not go against social norms.