A. The Defendant did not have damaged two copies of the instant public notice, and among the two copies of the said public notice, only 10,000 copies of the public notice attached on the first floor of the apartment building of this case were removed and again attached to the original location.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the charge that the notice of this case was removed is unfair as it misleads the facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was illegally dismissed on July 15, 2012, when he/she was employed as the chairman of the instant apartment management committee, and the commission of the victim election commission chairman and its members is also unlawful.

As such, the written public notice of this case prepared by the Election Commission of the victim unlawfully composed of the above is null and void, it does not constitute a document which is the object of the crime of destruction, and considering that the dismissal of the defendant is null and void and the defendant still is in the position of the chairperson of the apartment management committee of this case, even if the defendant was removed, the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous as it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant was removed from the two copies of the notice of this case, and that the head of the apartment management office D of this case received a report from the residents of the apartment of this case that the written notice of this case does not exist, and it again prepared the written notice of this case and attached it to the place where the written notice of this case was removed. Among the materials submitted in the court below and the trial court, it is difficult to believe all the contents contrary thereto.

Thus, the fact that the defendant was removed from all the two copies of the notice of this case.