1. The allegation that the lower court’s judgment on Defendant A’s ground of appeal contains an abuse of discretionary power in determining the sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

2. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money and valuables related to the recommendation of candidates among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “providing money and valuables in relation to the activities of recommending a specific person as a candidate” and intentional act, etc. as provided in

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.