2. The judgment of Defendant A provided money to the right holder for the purpose of getting a specific candidate elected in an election for public office, and Defendant B, as a village head, did not engage in an election campaign but claimed support for a specific candidate.

Defendant

The crime of this case committed by Defendant B is not easy in that it impairs the fairness of election by impairing the elector's free will due to unfair economic benefits, thereby impairing the fairness of election and raising the risk of voting decision-making by the candidate's quality, knowledge, and policy rather than the candidate's quality, knowledge, and policy. Thus, even though Defendant B was responsible for making efforts to hold a fair election in a neutral position, the crime of this case was committed in that it damages the fairness of election by excluding one's status, thereby impairing the fairness of election. Therefore, the Defendants should be held liable corresponding thereto.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendants were late divided and reflected in their depth; (b) the money provided by Defendant A is not a large amount; (c) the candidates supported by the Defendants were dead and do not seem to have any significant impact on the result of the election; (d) the Defendants did not have any specific criminal records other than the previous criminal records; (c) the Defendants did not have any specific criminal records; (d) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the various sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission, although the lower court sentenced the Defendants A to a fine by escaping from the recommended type set forth in the sentencing guidelines, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court

3. Conclusion.