2. The Defendants recognized the instant crime and reflected in depth of the mistake, and there is no past record of criminal punishment or criminal punishment exceeding the fine prior to the same crime, and the instant crime does not seem to have affected the outcome of the instant election, and Defendant B returned money and valuables provided to Defendant A before the election day, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant A, who was a candidate for the president of the agricultural cooperative, provided the Defendant B with KRW 8 million in cash for election campaign purposes, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime. An election-related crime requires strict punishment as a crime detrimental to the objectivity and fairness of election. The fact that the money provided or received by the Defendants is not less than eight million won as above is unfavorable to the Defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the background of the instant crime, the age of the Defendants, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.