Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 17, 2017, the Defendant, at around 15:51, around 15:51, the Defendant, at the C office of the branch office of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, a public service worker, located on the 331st and 7th floor inside Ansan-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si, a public service worker, retired both copies of a written request for disclosure of information, one letter of delegation, and two copies of identification cards at the location of the request for disclosure of information, on the ground that the consent was omitted, while providing counseling on E and civil petitions, who is the D director of the said Corporation.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the documents used by public offices to have their usefulness.

2. Around 10:55 on August 18, 2017, the Defendant, as the public document invalidation on August 18, 2017, fell under the place indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1) on August 18, 2017, and under civil petition consultation with the head of D department of the foregoing Corporation on the grounds of paragraph (1) on the same grounds as that of paragraph (1), one copy of the request for disclosure of information on the books in his/her location, one copy of power of attorney, and two copies of identification cards in both hands.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the documents used by public offices to have their usefulness.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each victim of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (opportune selection);

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant had different knowledge that the above act constitutes a crime of nullifying official documents under the Criminal Act.

The argument is asserted.

However, in the establishment of a crime, the perception of illegality is sufficient to recognize that the crime was in violation of social justice and sound reasoning, and it does not require recognition of the relevant legal provision (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2673, Mar. 24, 1987). The defendant was sufficiently aware that his act was in violation of social justice and sound reasoning at least.

It should be seen as a crime of invalidation of public documents under the Criminal Code.