Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the female president of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment.

On July 10, 2015, around 22:00, the Defendant removed a public notice stating that “marbling the fact relevance about the distribution of false facts to many residents” in the name of “Fembling-gu, the representative of the occupants of the 6th C apartment,” which was attached on the bulletin board in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, to the effect that it would be effective.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the prosecution against D and E;

1. Written complaint of D, F, G, or H (including a public notice attached thereto and a photograph of a closure);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports, investigation reports (election-related documents, such as the representative, etc. and the former management office E and monetary reports);

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. The defense counsel applying Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to the provisional payment order asserts that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act of self-defense or violating social norms. Thus, the above written notice is merely an expression contrary to the defendant's sending text messages, and it does not seem to be an direct attack against the defendant, and there is no evidence to deem that the above written notice was attached without due process, and the defendant was attached 15 minutes after the aforementioned written notice. However, in light of the above detailed circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the defendant's act was self-defense and it is difficult to say that the defendant again attached the written notice according to each statement of D and E, and considering that it is difficult to see that the defendant's act was self-defense to defend the other party's unfair attack or that it does not violate social rules.