All appeals filed by E and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant E’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) against the Defendants against the public prosecutor (as to the Defendants) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act to guarantee the objectivity and fairness of the election, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to have been excessive to Defendant E, or excessively exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account the following factors: (a) there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment; (b) Defendant E was in a trial; (c) Defendant E was in prison for five months; (d) Defendant E was in prison for three months; and (e) Defendant E was in prison for three months; and (e) Defendant E was in need of serious punishment on the instant crime, taking into account the importance of the legislative intent and the case of the Public Official Election Act to ensure the objectivity and fairness of the election.