2. The defendants' erroneousness and reflects the defendants, each crime of the defendants seems to have a significant influence on the election of this case, and the punishment power of the defendant A was 14 years prior to the punishment power of the same crime, and the defendant B did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, etc. are favorable to the defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants published distorted results of the public opinion poll by manipulating the results of the public opinion poll in favor of the Defendant A who wishes to be a candidate for the D election. The Defendants’ crime is unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the following: (a) the Defendants’ act of causing the electors to make accurate decisions on candidates; (b) the Defendants’ act of causing them to affect the free and reasonable decision-making of electors; or (c) the Defendants’ act of causing distortion of the results of public opinion poll is likely to undermine the fairness of election; and (d) the Defendants’ method of distorted, intelligent, and its degree is unreasonable.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character, conduct and environment, motive and background leading to each of the instant crimes, the means and methods of committing the instant crimes, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances and the circumstances after committing the crimes, it is not determined that the lower court’s respective punishment imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.