Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates the C Building 113 to D convenience points in Si interest, and Defendant B is an employee of the above convenience store.

Defendants were installed at the crosswalk in front of the above convenience point on April 30, 2017 and at the signal light pole at the crosswalk in front of the above convenience point.

The 19th presidential election E. Election P. F. Election banner (8m wide, 1.2m long) removed both the strings of the above banner in the knife knife, on the ground that it interfered with the business of this convenience store.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to remove one banner of candidate F under the Public Official Election Act without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. A report on internal investigation (including internal CCTV verification devices installed at the site and photographs attached thereto);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the abandoned banner photographs and kniver photographs;

1. Defendants: Article 240(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The scope of punishment by law: Fine not exceeding 4 million won;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria based on the sentencing criteria: Offenses for which the sentencing criteria are not set; and

3. The crime of this case, where the Defendants conspired to commit the crime of this case, is likely to damage the elector’s right to know, the fairness of election, and the utility of election management by damaging the elector’s right to know, without any justifiable reason.

However, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the mistake, and the fact that Defendant B came to commit the instant crime under the direction of Defendant A, the main convenience store he works.

In addition, this case, such as the age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.