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

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 3, 2014, the Defendant, as the chairperson of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Committee for Election Management of Apartment Housing, notified that he was dismissed from his 9 Dong representative qualification on July 2, 2014 in accordance with the relevant regulations, such as the management rules, following that he violated Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and the Management Rules and that the majority of the residents of the Dong were dismissed from his 9 Dong representative qualification as part of July 2, 2014.

“A notice was posted” with the content of “a notice.

However, in fact, the victim D, the representative of the above apartment 9 Dong, did not violate the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and the victim was dismissed from office in the capacity of the representative because he did not go through the procedure of the majority of the occupants of the relevant constituency and the consent of the majority of voters with respect to the dismissal of the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant undermined the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. The portion of the statement made by the witness D in the third public trial protocol;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation;

1. Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 307 (2) of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged was posted by the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment.

However, the victim D did not violate Article 20 of the management rules.

Nevertheless, the Defendant undermined the honor of the victim by openly pointing out false facts as above.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim interfered with the receipt of the documents to participate in the bidding of the Taeduk Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. by force on April 18, 2014, and at the same time interfered with the process of reverse bidding for the C apartment security.