In addition, each of the crimes of this case distorted the outcome of the public opinion poll by ordering, inducing, and inducing the Defendants to respond to their age in a public opinion poll for the competition of each party by using the Kakao Stockholm of P, a private group of private groups, to respond to the age in a false manner. This would impair the fairness of election and undermine the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act that limits the method of a public official competition campaign conducted prior to an election so that the election is held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures.

Criminal quality is bad.

In full view of the circumstances unfavorable to the above Defendants and the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, even if considering all favorable circumstances for the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants repented and resisted their mistakes, Defendant A did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine, and Defendant B did not have any history of punishment exceeding the suspension of execution, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The Defendants’ assertion disputing the propriety of the original judgment’s punishment is rejected.

2. Conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.