The Defendant is a person who has served as the Deputy Director of Sales Management in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Company and the Deputy Director of Sales Management.

Although the Defendant may not interfere with the preparation, posting, posting, or installation of posters, placards, or other propaganda facilities under the Public Official Election Act, or damage or remove them, on May 22, 2014, at around 10:0, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the banner of the Defendant’s E-party candidate F of the Seoul Metropolitan Council member E-party Election of the 6th National Assembly member of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Council, for the purpose of installing a luculation, etc. in relation to the open events of the company’s model luculation between the front street trees and street lamps.

As a result, the defendant removed the banner under the Public Official Election Act without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A photograph installed with a banner for the election of public officials or a state of removal of a banner for the election of public officials;

1. Two copies of a photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (report on the confirmation of the election commission in Seocho-gu);

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. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won a day);

1. The crime of this case, which arbitrarily removes banner installed under the Public Official Election Act without any justifiable reason, without the reason for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Pronouncement (hereinafter referred to as the grounds for sentencing), is an act detrimental to the fairness of the election, utility of the election management, etc., and thus, is not less complicated.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is in profoundly contradictory to the criminal records of the same kind.

In addition, the crime of this case was removed by the defendant, who had already been installed at the same time in the process of installing a stamper for the promotion of the company's events.