2. The judgment of the defendant is close to the fact that the elderly who is the senior citizen with the character of the senior citizen, such as dementia, is unable to vote on behalf of the defendant. Thus, the crime of this case is not only against the free will of the voting right holder, but also against the fairness of the election, which is the foundation of democracy, because the voting right of other persons than the defendant can be reflected in the election. The number of persons eligible for absentee voting reported falsely by the defendant is not less than a large number of persons eligible for absentee voting.

Also, in light of the fact that there are frequent cases similar to this case in relation to reported reports by patients admitted to various facilities, it is difficult to deem that the possibility of criticism is small in light of the fact that the election commission employees received prior guidance that they should not make false reported reports.

In full view of these points, it cannot be denied that there is no reasonable aspect of the prosecutor's argument in the grounds of appeal.

However, since the crime of this case did not lead to the actual absentee voting, it does not practically affect the fairness of the election, and it is doubtful that the defendant committed the crime of this case for a specific candidate, or that the prosecutor was a member of Qua Party from 2007. However, although there is doubt about the political motive of the crime of this case, it is inappropriate to consider it as the basis for sentencing, since the intention of the crime of this case is not proven objectively.

This does not seem to have taken certain benefits, and the defendant recognized all the crimes as a first offender who has no record of criminal punishment and reflects the truth in depth, and are shown in the arguments in this case, such as the age, character, conduct, career, environment of the defendant, the circumstances and results of the crimes in this case, etc.