Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 2, 2012, around 14:00, Defendant A: (a) the victim’s ownership attached by the “F management body” to the F commercial building located in Seogu-gu, Daegu; and (b) the head of the “public notice” printed in the A4 page attached to the first floor, the second floor, and the first or fourth unit of the commercial building; and (c) the removal of the above notice to Defendant B and C; and (d) Defendant B and Defendant C removed several copies of the above public notice around that time.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal the documents of the victim.

2. Defendant A, at around 14:00 on August 3, 2012, at the same place as the preceding paragraph, was the victim’s possession attached by the “F Management Body” by the victim, and several heads of “emergency public notice” printed in A4 were attached to the first floor, second floor, and elevator 1-4, and said that Defendant B and C remove the above emergency public notice, and Defendant B and Defendant C removed several copies of the above emergency public notice around that time.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal the documents of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Investigation report (attached to written judgments - 201Gahap2846 of this Court);

1. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the investigation report (F prosperity management rules) was not guilty because they had legitimate authority to remove the unauthorized attachment in accordance with Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Commercial Building Number Management Rules, because they had legitimate authority to remove the unauthorized attachment under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

However, at the time of the instant case, the dispute has already been embodied as a legal dispute between the prosperity Association and the management body (the G has filed a lawsuit against the prosperity Association seeking confirmation of invalidity of the management rules and the judgment of the first instance court was rendered on July 26, 2012). The Defendants should have known that they waited for the court’s decision on the legal status of the prosperity Association and followed it.

Documents stating the position of the Defendants on the prosperity.