2. The Public Official Election Act limits the amount of election expenses to prevent an election for public office, which is the basis of democratic politics, from being carried out in an unfair manner due to differences in the political power and the economic power between candidates. As such, the Defendant’s liability for the excessive election expenses, as a person in charge of accounting, cannot be deemed to be minor.

However, as the court below properly pointed out, the crime of this case seems to have arisen from the defendant's non-experienced experience in the accounting affairs related to the election, and the excessive expenses (14,106,430 won) are not large to about 10% of the limited amount, and thus, a typical election of the right of vote does not appear. The defendant's candidate's election does not appear to have a significant influence on the result of the election, the defendant's approval of the crime of this case was involved in the crime of this case, the defendant's depth is divided in depth, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the court below's punishment against the defendant based on the final decision based on the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records and arguments of this case including favorable circumstances, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the court below is unreasonable, and thus the prosecutor's appeal of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.