Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On December 19, 2012, around 12:30, the Defendant removed and destroyed two copies of the “third-party chairman election notice” notice in the name of the victim D who elected the chairman of the third party council of occupants’ representatives at the first floor of the Gu apartment-type C apartment factory, which is attached to the front wall.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of photograph (Evidence No. 12-1 page);

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that since the defendant's act was removed from the notice attached by D without authority, it does not violate social rules and is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules and does not constitute a crime by excluding illegality.

According to the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, and the police testimony protocol against E and F, there was a dispute between the defendant's side and D with respect to the existence of the defendant's president status at the time of the instant case. This court can recognize the fact that the court issued a provisional disposition ordering D to suspend the performance of duties on February 14, 2013. However, the court's decision that the defendant arbitrarily damaged the notices in the name before the suspension of execution of duties of D cannot be deemed to violate the social rules. Thus, the above argument is rejected.