2. The crime of this case is a situation in which the electors distributed a number of name cards indicating irregular academic background to the apartment mail in which the electors reside prior to the election campaign period. The number of name cards distributed by the Defendant is not small, and the Defendant was given legal guidance and oral warning from the competent election commission on several occasions in relation to the distribution of name cards, and the Defendant’s act of distributing the name cards of this case is heavier than the Defendant’s responsibility.

Meanwhile, there are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant completed the course of L University Administrative Graduate School M, which is an irregular academic background entered in the name of the Defendant, and that the Defendant obtained Y tickets from a resident recruitment market that he left as a candidate, which is merely Z% of the total valid votes number of 60,356 marks, and thus, the instant crime appears to have no particular effect on the result of the election.

In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is determined as appropriate punishment corresponding to the Defendant’s liability, and the sentence is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the grounds of appeal by the defendant and prosecutor to the effect that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.