Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

From February 2, 2016 to July 10, 2016, the Defendant is a person who is the director of the Management Office of the Incheon Southern-gu Office of Commercial Building D.

around 09:50 on August 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received the said postal item from H, a public official in charge of the management office, who intends to carry it with a post office to send one sealed postal item in order for the sender to be “D shopping management unit E” and “FF corporation representative G”, a controlled entity of the said shopping district; and (b) received the said postal item from H, a public official in charge of the management office, and sent it without speech to the management office.

In order to remove the sealed part of the above postal item in the office knife with the seal of the above postal item, while removing it, the above postal item was removed from H to be returned from the Defendant, and the sealed part of the postal item was removed from the knife in the knife, and the sealed part was removed from the knife to the knife for office, and the sealed part was opened.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing witness H and E's respective legal statements;

1. Article 316 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. Although the defendant had been able to confirm the letter of this case to be sent by H, who is a public official in charge of the management office, as the management office's complaint at the time, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not have the right to compulsorily cut the letter from H or arbitrarily removed it.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① in the case of a witness H, the defendant tried to deduct him from the investigative agency to the court, and the letter was partially removed, and also the defendant's letter was the letter.