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

On July 10, 2014, the Defendant, within the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment C apartment 157-dong elevator, removed, from the wall, the notice of the item “I have been affixed with the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives of the above apartment and the official seal of the above apartment living support center of the above apartment, the victim, with the official seal of the chairperson of the council of occupants’ representatives of the above apartment and the official seal of the above apartment living support center, that “I have been seriously threatened with our children’s safety using the lawful playground,” and removed, from March 30, 2014 to July 10, 2014, seven copies of the notice were removed in total 52 times as shown in the list of crimes.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed the documents of the victim, thereby impairing their usefulness.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of D, and complaint of D;

1. Application of the ct Elimination List, ctv photographs (A), and the laws and regulations governing "post notices" removed by the suspect;

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

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

1. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant and defense counsel have removed the idea that the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case should resist the chairperson to properly observe the management rules by putting up illegally posted materials which did not go through legitimate procedures by abusing their authority. This act of the defendant is not only an error of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act but also an error of law as provided by Article 16 of the Criminal Act, and it does not constitute a crime since there is no possibility of criticism. However, each public notice of the facts stated in the judgment on the crime prepared and posted in the name of