The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Each of the crimes of this case is a case where the defendant, who is in office as a large church pastor, has screened the news and videos containing the contents supporting the candidate G of the National Assembly member and I for about 3,00 persons who are present at the time of worship in order to have an influence on the election of the National Assembly member, and election campaign is conducted to ensure that the candidate's office for the National Assembly member is not elected by taking advantage of the status of church's membership pastor.

The court below held that in light of the fact that the unfavorable circumstances of the defendant's church which is a pastor of the defendant's gathering is the largest size of X to the extent that the number of the registered members would reach 8,000, and that the defendant, as a pastor of such large church, is aware of the influence of the contents of his/her speech and the church's foundation, etc., but he/she conducts an election campaign for approximately 3,000 believers attending a day's worship, the crime's nature is not less than that of the crime in light of the fact that he/she committed an election campaign for approximately 3,00 believerss attending a day's worship, he/she cannot be deemed to have led to a conclusive effect on the result of the election, and that the crime of

O expressed that the defendant does not want to be punished, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, etc. In addition, considering all kinds of sentencing conditions in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, background, circumstances of the crime, means and result, etc., the punishment was determined within the recommended sentencing range of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court.

Considering the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as shown in the records and arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope, taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing as shown in the proceedings of the instant case.