Defendant

All appeals against the defendant A and the prosecutor B are dismissed.

1. The crime of this case as to Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing of sentencing causes the risk of nullifying the essential function of the election campaign that Defendant A is able and excellent by getting affected by the candidate’s quality and ability, and Defendant A’s decision is likely to distort the inherent function of the election campaign that Defendant A is able and excellent, and Defendant A plans to commit the crime of this case and takes place to implement the crime of this case, taking full account of the following factors: (a) Defendant A led to the entire crime of this case, among various sentencing factors, the confession of all Defendant A and the other party to the election of this case, and Defendant A’s act of giving rise to infringement on the fairness of the election of this case by giving up the election of this case, i.e., giving up the opportunity to support by gathering 17 local residents at around 4 months prior to the election day; and (b) Defendant A’s actual violation of the fairness of the election of this case by giving up the election of this case at the 7th local election of this case.

It is difficult to see that the amount of contribution is a relatively small amount, and that Defendant A is an initial offender who has no record of criminal punishment, etc., in light of all the favorable facts to Defendant A, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by excessively leaving the sentence of the lower court.

Defendant A’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing in the lower court is rejected.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment (as to Defendant B), and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it should be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).