2. The Defendant’s crime of this case is found to have published false facts about his past act in TV discussions with a large influence on the voters, and the crime of this case is not against the nature of the crime and crime in light of the fact that the right holders are highly likely to obstruct the fair choice of the candidates.

However, on the other hand, it is difficult to view the crime of this case as planned in light of the circumstances leading up to the statement of this case when the defendant responded to questions of the other party candidate and the circumstances leading to the statement of this case are different from the actual ones. As a result, the crime of this case did not affect the election result, and the defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime and did not have any criminal history exceeding the fine, etc., shall be favorable or taken into account to the defendant.

In light of the above various circumstances, there is no change in special circumstances that could vary in the sentence of the court below. In addition, in full view of the following conditions: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of crime, motive or circumstance of crime, method and method of crime, contents and consequence of crime, the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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