Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won, and a fine of 500,000 won, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and B are between friendships.

No person shall obstruct the preparation, posting, posting, posting or installation of posters, placards or other propaganda facilities under the Public Official Election Act, or damage or remove them without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, at around 03:10 on December 2, 2012, the Defendants reported 8 posters related to the 18th presidential election (Ga 5.6m x vertical 0.7m x 0.7m) posted on the pent of commercial building, the mother of Defendant A, in front of the latter part of the E Elementary School located in Leecheon-si, Leecheon-si, and posted them without obtaining the consent of the building owner, etc., Defendant A removed the said poster on his hand. Defendant B removed the said poster in combination with it, and Defendant B removed the said poster, and then Defendant B laid down the poster, and then Defendant A laid the said poster into an adjacent vacant site located away from the area of the building that was located outside of approximately 15 days from the said steel network.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to damage posters under the Public Official Election Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. On-site photographs and CCTV screen data;

1. Application of CCTV-recording CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 240 (1) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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

1. In light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act to protect the elector’s right to know, the freedom of election campaign and the fairness of election campaigns, the utility of lawful election management, etc., as well as the form and method of committing the crime, etc., the Defendants’ criminal acts do not constitute such crime.

However, the Defendants appeared to have committed the instant crime by contingency in a complaint against an administrative agency due to alcohol or dissatisfaction, and there is no political intent or purpose to influence the election. In fact, the instant crime appears to have little influence on the election result.