2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that, in an elevator, he did not remove “the announcement of the election of the third-party representative by buildings”, and that he removed and copied the announcement of “the announcement of the violation of the regulations on election management” concerning himself, and then affixed it again to the elevator.

B. Determination 1) According to the CCTV CD’s image, etc., it is doubtful that the Defendant could have damaged the “public announcement of election for each third-party representative” on February 28, 2016, when the time limit for public announcement of the election for each third-party representative was February 27, 2016 and the date for public announcement of the “public announcement of election for each third-party representative” was February 26, 2016. In addition, considering the fact that the time limit for public announcement of the “public announcement of election for each third-party representative” was February 28, 2016, it is doubtful that the Defendant might have damaged the “public announcement of election for each third-party representative.” However, the burden of proof on the criminal facts charged in a criminal trial exists with the public prosecutor, and the recognition of guilt should be based on evidence of probative value that could cause a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no doubt as to such doubt, the Defendant is guilty.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). 3) The health stand back to the instant case, and the following circumstances recognized by the record, namely, ① a copy of the public announcement of “a notice of violation of the regulations on election management,” which the Defendant posted after copying, to the investigation agency and the court, and ② the notice of the apartment even after the expiration of the period of public announcement.