The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the father of the Dcheon-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoul.

On March 30, 2017, the Defendant discovered that there is a banner for the election of a candidate for the F Party candidate for the E constituency in the case of the 4/12 City Special Election at the time of the access road crosswalk street, etc. while checking the surrounding environment of the Dcheon at around the 000th day of March 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) discovered that there is a banner for the election of a candidate for the F Party candidate for the E constituency in the case of the 4/12 City Special Election at the time prior to the access road crosswalk; and (b) removed H from the technical team member of Dcheon around 06:05 the same day, stating, “I remove the banner because the banner has d entrance at the outside; (c) cut the ropes connected to the street, cut off the banner, and remove it by removing it in the election banner by removing it.”

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with H to remove banners and other propaganda facilities under the Public Official Election Act without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the H substitute part);

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Police seizure records;

1. A copy of the technology team;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day converted);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (hereinafter, taking into account the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) was to impair the elector’s right to know, the fairness of election, and the effectiveness of election management by damaging propaganda facilities under the Public Official Election Act without justifiable grounds.

However, it does not seem that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and against the defendant, that the defendant was the first offender who has no criminal history, and that there was no intention to obstruct the election campaign of a specific candidate.