A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

From March 26, 2016 to June 24, 2019, the Defendant was a person who held office as the representative of the occupants of Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon.

On June 25, 2019, the Defendant, at around 18:44, removed and damaged the document under the title “public notice of resignation of the president of the council of occupants’ representatives” in the name of the chairman of the said apartment election commission, which was posted on the bulletin board of the said apartment Cdong elevator.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the investigation report (electronic information confirmation and detailed list-suspect E), investigation report (Attachment to the public notice of resignation of the president of the council of occupants' representatives), and public notice released by the suspect, to the accused's partial statement E;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. At the time of the defendant and the defense counsel's argument as to the assertion of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, two documents were posted on the elevator, "the notice of resignation of the president of the council of occupants' representatives," and one of them was normally attached on the bulletin board, which appears on the front side of the elevator, but the other one was ordinarily attached on the elevator's seat at the right side of the bulletin board, and there was no intention to remove the documents posted in an abnormal manner and damage the documents.

(Other, the Defendant asserted that the document cannot be punished due to the destruction and damage of documents, if the Defendant’s act does not interfere with the election commission’s duties, and that the document’s removal of the document infringed on the Defendant’s personality by iceing the election commission’s duties, was self-defense). According to evidence presented prior to the judgment on February 1, 200, according to CCTV submitted by E to investigation agency (in particular, CCTV video screen submitted by E to investigation agency), the elevator is aboard.