If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

On August 3, 2017, at the C office of the police station located at the center of 230, at the time of stay at around 12:44, the Defendant would wish to peruse the Defendant’s newspaper protocol, which was investigated by the Defendant, to the police officer in charge, D, who was suspected of violating the Building Act.

It was required from D to issue each Defendant’s examination protocol to Defendant and Defendant’s wife E, and during the inspection, the Defendant’s examination protocol was prepared by police officers’ pressure.

In the end, two copies of the Defendant’s newspaper report were teared by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged two copies of the Defendant’s questioning protocol, which is a document used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. The criminal place;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each investigation report (No. 4,7) (Evidence List No. 4 and 7);

1. Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 40 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing in the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, laid down without permission a suspect examination protocol of himself/herself and his/her wife.

The words and actions at the time of crime and thereafter are also very poor.

The above points were considered as disadvantageous circumstances.