Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

No one 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, on May 29, 2014, at around 04:29, the Defendant removed 21 copies of the total campaign posters (4 candidates for Seoul City Mayor, 4 candidates for the superintendent of Seoul Office of Education, 3 candidates for the head of Gwanak-gu Office, 3 candidates for the head of Gwanak-gu Office, 7 candidates for the head of Gwanak-gu Office, and 7 candidates for the head of Gwanak-gu Office), on which the photograph, name, mark, and the name and career of the political party to which the candidate is recommended, etc. of the candidates of the 6th nationwide local election posted by the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Election Commission on the roads in front of the "crick church" located in 81, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (referring to a report on 112 cases related to election), investigation report (Attachment to a report on 112 cases related to election), investigation report (D slope and telephone of a police officer arrested a suspect) and criminal investigation report;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had been already punished twice due to the crime of destroying and damaging property, again committed the instant crime. In particular, the instant crime that damages campaign posters under the Public Official Election Act without any justifiable reason, is detrimental to the fairness of the election, the usefulness of the election management, etc., and the liability for such crime is not easy.

However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and is in depth against the defendant.

In addition, the crime of this case not only seems to have an intention to influence the election because the defendant committed contingent acts under the influence of alcohol, but also is not significant in the degree of damage.

3.2