2. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment, taking into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the fact that the crime of this case was committed under the influence of alcohol without political intent or purpose, i.e., the following: (i) the right to know the elector’s identity; (iii) the fairness of election; and (iv) the utility of election management; (ii) the Defendant’s mistake in favor of himself; and (iii) the Defendant is a primary offender with no criminal history; and (iv) the Defendant appears to have committed contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol

Although the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the lower court is light in light of the Defendant’s form of crime and the nature of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been appropriately determined by fully taking into account the aforementioned various factors of sentencing against the Defendant, and there is no change in special circumstances to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. In addition, considering all the factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, social experience, degree of character and behavior, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence against the Defendant is too unjustifiable

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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