The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below (two years of suspended sentence in eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case is that the defendant, who was the president of the Saemaul Movement Council C branch of the Saemaul Movement Council, contributed to the act of providing money to the voters for a specific preliminary candidate in the process of the election for the 6th nationwide local election and in violation of the prohibition of the intra-party competition campaign. The defendant's liability for the crime is not less than that of the defendant in light of the specific contents and circumstances of the crime, the time and amount of the crime, and the amount of money provided.

It is necessary to eradicate this act strictly in terms of not only impeding the establishment of clean and fair election culture, but also creating the harmful effects of the election.

However, the following points are favorable to or considered to the defendant.

With the early detection of a crime, most of the money was immediately confiscated, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's act has a significant impact on the actual result of the intra-party competition because of the failure to transmit text messages upon request by the parties concerned.

There is no evidence to deem that a crime was committed in connection with the survey of the relevant preliminary candidate and in accordance with the prior plan.

The defendant is recognized to commit a crime, and a mistake is in depth divided through a prison life.

In addition to a minor fine imposed in 1984, there is no previous offense.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, including the aforementioned various circumstances, the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

B. Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.