Judgment

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant's preliminary candidate for the National Assembly member supported by the defendant was successful in the 21st National Assembly member election, and it seems that the crime of this case is not significantly affected by the result of the election, and the fact that the defendant is the first offender is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was unable to conduct an election campaign in accordance with the Public Official Election Act as a member of the Residents' Self-Governing Committee at the time of the instant crime, and was prohibited from promoting the achievements of a specific political party or candidate (including a person who wishes to be a candidate). Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the Public Official Election Act by conducting an election campaign for about 23 months in total, promoting the achievements of preliminary candidates on 13 occasions in total, and repeatedly promoting the achievements of preliminary candidates on 13 occasions, and the Defendant was experienced in withdrawing from H Si Council in 2014, and the Defendant was informed on December 26, 2019, before the instant crime was committed, that the Defendant committed the instant crime, even though he was informed by the Residents' Self-Governing Committee on December 26, 2019.

In addition to the fact that there is no change in circumstances in relation to the sentencing conditions after the decision of the court below, considering comprehensively the sentencing conditions prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., including the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair as it is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.