The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

No poster, placard or other propaganda facilities under the Election of Public Officials Act shall be damaged without any justifiable reason.

On April 21, 2017, at around 15:45, the Defendant teared the posters of candidates C with symbol C, among the walls of 15 candidates for election, which were installed in the wall of the 19th presidential candidate for the 15th presidential election, which was set up in the wall of the 17th presidential church of the 19th presidential candidate for the 17th presidential election in the Yansan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged posters under the Public Official Election Act without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reports on internal investigation and investigation reports;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the screen by cutting off on-site photographs and CCTV images;

1. Article 240 (1) of the relevant Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 240 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials in Charge of the Selection of Punishment;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the following conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing) of the suspended sentence

1. The scope of punishment: A fine not exceeding four million won;

2. Whether the sentencing criteria are applied: Whether the sentencing criteria are not set; and

3. The crime of this case in which the Defendant, without justifiable grounds, destroyed the poster for election under the Election of Public Officials Act, thereby impairing the right to identify the elector, impairing the fairness of the election, and impairing the utility of the election management, and the quality of the crime is not negligible, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding a fine prior to the age of 74 years, recognition of a criminal act and a mistake against his/her own crime, political intent to influence an election, or to interfere with election campaigns of a specific candidate, and the fact that economic situation seems to be very difficult due to the fact that it is difficult for the defendant to maintain his/her livelihood with the main day of abolition, etc.

In addition, various sentencing shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive of crime, etc.