Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall display or install any advertisement, etc. in any place prohibited from display or installation of such advertisement, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, on April 25, 2016, from around 07:00 to about 15:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) maintained the promise of mass-fabbbing bridge B, which is a place where the installation of advertisements, etc. is prohibited for eight hours; (b) in the building of the steel materials located in the mass-fabrication of the large scale of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, the place where the installation of advertisements, etc. is prohibited; (c) “D dismissed persons reinstated; (d)”; (d) “Suspension of dismissal” (fam x 1m in width x vertical length x 11m in vertical length); and (d) “D

Three placards, respectively, stating “(1m wide x 1.5m vertical length)” (3 banners were installed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (a banner used by a suspected person);

1. Article 18(1)3, Article 4(1), and Article 3(1)5 of the former Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertising Products, Etc. (amended by Act No. 13726, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertising Products, Etc.”) concerning criminal facts; Article 24(1)1 (l) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertising Products, etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27323, Jul. 6, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of Outdoor Advertising Industry”).

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

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion was dismissed on the ground that the Defendant was working for a company D (hereinafter “D”) on January 1, 1982 and led to the strike on April 29, 1985. However, on June 22, 2009, the Committee for Deliberation on Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement was recognized as a person for restoration of Honor, and the said Committee was against the Defendant on July 14, 2009.