Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 11, 2014, at around 20:23, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the notice of “Guidance on the Composition of the C Emergency Countermeasure Committee and on the request for convening a meeting of the management body” which is the victim owned by D, a member of the C Emergency Countermeasure Committee, received and attached to the management office, without any specific reason, in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ctel B elevator B, Yeongdeungpo-gu, and damaged the above notice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (as to the public notice causing damage and damage);

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

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

1. First of all, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the public notice was teared in the process of removing the above public notice, or that the defendant cannot be deemed to have impaired the validity of the document because the defendant again attached the above public notice at the same place. Thus, the crime of homicide or destruction is established by destroying or concealing another person's property, documents, etc., or by impairing the utility of the document by other means, and the defendant's direct exercise of tangible power in property or documents. The defendant removed the above public notice so that the possibility of using the public notice was infringed at the time when the document can not be used for its original purpose, and the crime of damage was committed because the public notice cannot be seen to have been used for the original purpose, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant and the defense counsel's above assertion is without merit.

Next, even if the defendant's act damages the above public notice, the defendant's act is above officetels.