All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too minor or unreasonable.

2. The judgment defendant had a record of being punished for the same crime, and again committed the crime of this case.

Although the Public Official Election Act strictly limits the payment of money and valuables related to election campaigns in addition to allowances and actual expenses permitted by the Public Official Election Act in order to ensure that elections are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and to prevent excessive and mixed elections by the election campaign, and strictly regulates the methods and periods of election campaigns, the Defendant provided unregistered election campaign athletes with total of KRW 1,330,000 and KRW 1,330,000 as allowances and actual expenses, and provided them with food and drink equivalent to KRW 950,000 in total to the election campaign members, it is not easy to punish the crime.

However, the defendant's mistake is considered to be against the depth of the crime.

Money, valuables, etc. provided by the defendant are relatively less likely to be criticized compared to the act of offering money, goods, etc. to purchase the general public as being paid at the level of compensation for actual expenses or election activities.

The amount of money and valuables provided by the Defendant is not significant, and the crime of this case does not seem to have a significant impact on the election result.

In addition to these circumstances, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions of the Defendant, including the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee, as well as new circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court in the first instance trial. In addition to the first instance trial, in a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).