A. Defendants 1) Defendant A’s punishment [the violation of the Public Official Election Act (the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Network Utilization and Information Protection)] of the lower court is too unreasonable as Defendant A’s punishment (the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection) was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, one year, one year, and 2 and 3

2) Defendant B’s punishment [10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Articles 1 and 2 of the original judgment (the violation of each Public Official Election Act)], 2 years of suspended sentence, and 3 of the decision of the original court [10 hours of community service order for the crimes of Articles 1 through 3 of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Network Utilization and Information Protection (Violation of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Network Utilization, etc.)] are too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We also examine Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments on unreasonable sentencing.

1) The crime of Article 2 of the decision of the court below (the crime of this case against the violation of the Public Official Election Act) is a case where the defendant conspired with B, who is an accomplice, and published the false facts about the K candidate by linking the Internet host site with the video with the Internet host site for the purpose of preventing the election of the 6th nationwide local election, and the crime of this case is not good in that it is likely to impair the fairness of election by impeding fair and proper judgment of the voters. The crime of this case is that the election is held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedure, and the purpose and purpose of the Public Official Election Act, which aims to contribute to the development of democratic politics, is damaged by preventing the malpractice related to the election, and the defendant is an unspecified Internet.