2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower judgment, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the substance of the specific case.

According to the records, the defendants are expected to have difficulties in paying the fines imposed by the court below because they have no special revenue as family owners.

In addition, each of the crimes committed by the Defendants seems to be caused by dolusent intention rather than by conclusive intention.

In addition, there are favorable circumstances that the court below explained to the Defendants in sentencing.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a serious crime that the defendants posted false facts about the defendant to E, a social network service (SNS) due to the fact that the defendants could not be elected in the Gu Council members.

The frequency of such notices is reached several times.

b) the Commission;