2. The Public Official Election Act, which is the basis of democratic politics, requires strict punishment for a violation committed by a public official in order to ensure the legitimacy of state power and to contribute to the maintenance and development of democratic politics by ensuring the free will of the people and preventing any malpractice related to the election. However, as in the instant case, it is clear that the Defendant’s act of slandering against the candidate by illegally distributing newspapers that are disadvantageous to the other candidate for the purpose of the defeat of the other candidate is likely to undermine the fairness and transparency of the election by distorted public opinion, leading to the wrong choice of the voters. In light of the above, it is obvious that the Defendant’s crime is not good.

However, if the court below examines the defendant's punishment on the basis of the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's act of slandering the defendant, the other candidate's election result does not affect the result of the election, and the defendant does not have the same criminal record, etc., in light of the above circumstances, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair. Thus, the prosecutor's grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing are rejected.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.