A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 25, 2017, the Defendant, at around 01:50 on April 25, 2017, damaged the pictures of the candidates E and the pictures of the candidates E in the form of “X” among the 19th presidential election campaign posters installed in India, using the word-type knife in front of “D cafeteria” located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and damaged posters under the Public Official Election Act, without justifiable grounds, from around 01:40 on the same day to around 03:50 on 12 occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the list of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20);

1. Article 240 (1) of the Election of Public Officials Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes prescribed in a violation of the Public Official Election Act around April 25, 2017, with the largest penalty);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including observation of protection and community service order;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to three years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria: Non-establishment of sentence;

3. The crime of this case, which determined the sentence of punishment, is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the right to identify the elector, the fairness of the election, the utility of the election management, etc., that the nature of the crime is not less severe, the number of posters damaged by the defendant, and that there are multiple criminal records including imprisonment with prison labor, etc.

However, considering the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the fact that there is no previous conviction in the same kind of crime, etc., the defendant's motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, age, intelligence (the defendant did not leave school), sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, etc., the punishment is imposed as ordered by taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the motive, means and result of the crime.