beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On August 20, 2016, the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding, violation of law, and unreasonable sentencing) (the criminal facts of the original instance) as to the crime committed on August 20, 2016 (Article 1 of the original criminal facts), the management regulations are removed, read the contents thereof, and did not have the intent to
It is a legitimate act under the authority of the C representative.
With respect to the crime (paragraph 2) of December 27, 2016, there is no record on the removal of election-related notices.
It does not impair the utility of documents.
With respect to the crime of December 28, 2016 (Paragraph 3), the defendant's wife tried to assist the implementation of the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives.
The defendant was not recruited with his wife.
Determination of punishment (one million won of a fine) is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On August 20, 2016, the Defendant removed the “F Residents’ Joint Council Management Regulations” posted on the bulletin board at the entrance of B apartment C on August 20, 2016. The management regulations are not re-established on the bulletin board by August 22, 2016. The time period after the Defendant removed management regulations exceeds the time sufficient to read the management regulations and re-sign them. The Defendant’s intent to destroy documents is recognized. There is no ground to deem that such act is permissible even if the Defendant is the C representative. The crime of destroying documents is deemed unlawful. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts in the lower judgment, or in violation of law, affecting the conclusion of the judgment. According to the video (netly 73) judgment on the crime committed on December 27, 2016, the fact that the Defendant was selected on the bulletin board of the competent election commission “the document posted by the Defendant” and the “the document posted on August 27, 2016.”
The act of removing the above documents constitutes an act that impairs the usefulness of documents.
There is no error of misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the court below or in violation of law that affected the judgment.
3. The crime committed on December 28, 2016.