Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On April 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) the participants in the Seoul Square, which was held as the 416 joint supervision in the Seoul Square-ro 1, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the 416 Joint Chiefs of Staff, attempted to enter the Madern Square Square, and continued to hold an unreported conference, and (b) the police installed a bus with a police bus in the vicinity of the assembly site in order to prevent the participants from entering the assembly.

On April 18, 2015, at around 20:58, the Defendant parked on the street near the Sejong Cultural Center located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sejong, Jongno-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency 36 mid-to-face B buses belonging to the 36-dong 36-dong Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, in which the Defendant was in possession of the number plate of the vehicle was placed in the color of male stample.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods managed and used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (report on the confirmation of news articles and sexual picture related to the suspected suspect);

1. Relevant Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines, and the choice of fines;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the police, as indicated in the judgment, was based on the indication of a claim against the installation of a subordinate wall by the Constitutional Court, and that this constitutes the area of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, it constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, is dismissed.

The defendant's act is judged to have exceeded the inherent limits of freedom of expression in the contents and methods of the decision, and the criminal law does not meet the reasonableness, urgency, and supplement of the means and methods which are the requirement of the act of a political party.