2. The crime of this case is judged that the defendant provided money to the voters for the election of a specific candidate because the defendant was in fluence in the election, and such election crimes are not easy in that they interfere with the judgment of the elector in accordance with the ability rather than the quality, knowledge, and policy of the candidate and distort the free will, thereby seriously impairing the fairness and transparency of the election.

Therefore, it is necessary to ask the defendant to bear the corresponding responsibility.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant delayed divided and reflected his mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant provided money to the married couple of the sixth degree; (c) the amount of money provided by the Defendant could not be deemed to have influenced the result of the election by immediately reporting the Defendant’s crime; (d) the amount of money provided by the Defendant is not the maximum amount of money; (c) the Defendant has no specific criminal power other than the one-time fine; and (d) the conditions for various sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the crime; and (e) the application of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court; and (e) the result of the application of the Sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission, although the lower court set the number of recommended punishment [the scope of recommending punishment] set forth in the Sentencing set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines for the Defendant, it is too unreasonable to impose the sentence on the Defendant.

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.