2. The crime of this case, where the defendant damaged campaign posters, etc., is not considered to be minor in light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act to protect the elector's right to know, the fairness of election, the utility of legitimate election management, etc.

However, the defendant arranged the site as the manager at the construction site and seems to have no political intention or purpose to influence the election because he had removed campaign posters, etc., after considering the guidance phrase that the defendant would be punished by the destruction or removal of campaign posters, etc. while removing campaign posters, etc., the act of removal shall be discontinued and the remainder of the posters shall remain as they are. The defendant is against the defendant's perception of the crime of this case and the mistake is against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.