All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (a fine of KRW 800,00,000) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is committed in light of the following: (a) the Defendant A and his accountant in charge thereof sent to the electorate a considerable number of personnel reports by mail; and (b) the fact that the risk of hindering the establishment of fair election culture is not much high, the liability for the crime cannot be deemed to be mitigated.

However, among the other party to the dispatch of the letter of personnel dispatch sent by the Defendants, a considerable number of persons who are related to the Defendant A or D are included in the contents of the letter of personnel management, including appeal to the support of the Defendant A as an ordinary person of personnel management, is not included in the election-related contents, and the fact that the letter of personnel management does not include the political party or position of the Defendant A, is favorable to the Defendants.

The lower court, including the above circumstances, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of various factors of sentencing, including the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances, for the Defendants.

Considering the circumstances that the prosecutor’s internal address appears to be the circumstances that were present during the oral argument of the lower court or considered in determining the punishment at the lower court, and that there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, such as where no new sentencing data was submitted by this court, and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it can be deemed that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, even considering the circumstances that the prosecutor internal addresss.