The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a resident of the Busan Geum-gu apartment complex C in Busan, and the victim D is the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives. The Defendant stated in the facts charged in the instant case on January 25, 2014 that “the facts charged in the instant case on January 24, 2014.” However, it is recognized as such by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court.

Since E was elected as the president of a new tenant representative meeting at the apartment general meeting, the victim was not recognized as the president of the tenant representative meeting from that time.

However, since only 32 households, which do not reach the majority among 72 households, the above general meeting was a general meeting that cannot elect the president of the representatives' meeting of residents.

Nevertheless, on March 22, 2014, the Defendant damaged the victim’s “the letter of notice of departure from the president” owned by the victim D, which was attached to the apartment elevator, by reason that it cannot be recognized as the president of the tenant’s representative meeting.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the publication of the chairperson selection;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the primary crime and the minor damage) is confirmed by 42 households regarding the instant general meeting, and therefore, E can be deemed the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives. Since E’s instruction or a public announcement attached by the victim, which cannot be deemed the chairman, is removed as an officer of the council of occupants’ representatives, it is alleged to constitute a justifiable act. Accordingly, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, this case