Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions of this case, the crime of this case does not confirm whether the defendant is a person who is hospitalized in a hospital or who is unable to take care of dementia or who is unable to move due to aging, etc., in relation to the E election as the head of this Chapter, and is likely to interfere with the establishment of a fair election culture, which is the foundation of democratic politics, and the defendant is in a position to comply with the provisions related to the election and make efforts to establish a proper election culture by submitting a report on residence voting under his/her name. In light of the circumstances, method, etc. of the crime, it is not easy to take the responsibility for the crime in light of the circumstance, method, etc. of the crime, and preparing and submitting a report on residence voting without confirming the elector's intent, without reflecting the elector's genuine intent, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant appears to be aware of and reflect on the crime of this case; the number of residents who were recorded in the falsity among eight abode voters voting reports submitted by the Defendant is relatively more than three and the remaining five persons appears to have confirmed their will and submitted the above report; in fact, the Defendant did not vote on behalf of the residents registered in the falsity, and thus does not actually affect the fairness of election; and the Defendant is the first offender who did not have any criminal record, etc., in favor of the Defendant.

As above, the defendant is disadvantageous or favorable to the defendant.