2. The crime of this case in which the defendant, without justifiable grounds, damaged publicity facilities under the Election of Public Officials Act, thereby impairing the right of elector to know, the fairness of election, and the utility of election management, and the punishment for the crime of this case is not less complicated.

However, the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized by the defendant, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingency under the influence of alcohol, the fact that there is no political intent or purpose to obstruct election campaigns of a specific candidate or to influence election, the degree of damage to propaganda facilities is minor, the degree of damage of propaganda facilities is minor, and the candidate's side does not want the punishment of the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment by the defendant, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the various factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the circumstances related to the sentencing as shown in the proceedings of the instant case, and there is no other special change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court in the trial.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.