2. The Defendant is the first offender, and all of the instant crimes are recognized, and is in profoundly against the mistake.

In cases where the defendant is the spouse of a preliminary candidate, he/she is able to conduct an election campaign by saving a dog through which the preliminary candidate is publicized, and there are circumstances to be considered in the motive or circumstances leading to the instant crime.

The Defendant immediately suspended the instant crime when he/she was pointed out of the competent election commission, and cannot be deemed to have caused a significant impact on the result of the Defendant’s election.

However, the Defendant, as the spouse of a preliminary candidate, was unable to conduct an election campaign by saving the jackets in which matters necessary for publicity were posted, except in a case where the Defendant, as a spouse of a preliminary candidate, directly carried out the name cards of a preliminary candidate or complaining for support for a preliminary candidate, but B carried out an election campaign twice for C for the spouse of a preliminary candidate with the words “C” written.

The place where the defendant election campaign is carried out is where many people are frequent in the future of the D market and the F Station.

As such, the Defendant’s act does not violate the legislative purpose of the Local Education Autonomy Act and the Public Official Election Act in order to guarantee the opportunity for equal election campaign to the candidates, and prevent the excessive and waste of the election, and thus, the quality of the offense cannot be seen as rice.

A spouse of a preliminary candidate, who carries out an election campaign, shall be fully aware of the methods and limitations of the election campaign and be bound to observe it.

In addition, considering the various circumstances revealed in the records and pleadings of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.