2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant, while serving as an audit officer of the F Office of Education (Grade IV), was led by entering the Internet Doboard established for an election campaign by the superintendent of the I superintendent of the Office of Education, which was scheduled to be run at the office of education after about three months, as an incumbent superintendent of the Office of Education. The election opening of a public official is likely to not only impair the fairness of the election, but also be connected to personnel abolition such as reduction, debate, etc., and thus, the crime liability is not easy. In particular, the Defendant is a contractual officer prior to the expiration of the term of office on September 2014, who is a public official at a contract office with I superintendent of the Office of Education and directly has direct interest in the election of I superintendent of the Office of Education and his re-contract, and there is a position of an audit officer who is a duty to detect the misconduct, etc. of public officials. Accordingly, the Defendant is more likely to be subject to criticism, and there is no inconvenience that the Defendant’s act is against the purpose of the Public Official Election Act.

On the other hand, however, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is divided, that the defendant is the first offender, that he served as a public official, and has faithfully performed a public office for 40 years, such as being given official commendation, including the Order of Round's Service Merit, etc., that he included good performance while serving as an audit officer of the Office of Education, and that the workplace rent, etc. wanted to be a defendant's wife is favorable to the defendant.

As above, the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant and others.