The prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of two million won for Defendant A, a fine of one million won for Defendant B, and a fine of one million won for each of Defendant B) is unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The court below: (a) each of the instant offenses was committed by the Defendants in collusion, in violation of the method of an internal competition campaign prescribed by the Public Official Election Act; (b) Defendant A was engaged in a competition campaign in violation of the election campaign method; and (c) the nature of the offense is not good in light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act; (d) the Defendants recognized and reflect all of the offenses; (c) there was no history of punishment against the Defendants (including both Defendants A and B; (d) there was a history of punishment of fines twice; Defendant C was favorable to the Defendants; and (e) the amount of food supplies provided by Defendant A to a contribution act was determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendants’ age, environment, sex, motive, family relation, motive, and motive, and circumstances before, etc.

In full view of the facts constituting the conditions of sentencing, sentencing criteria, etc. expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

shall not be assessed.

It is difficult to view that the lower court’s unfair reasons for sentencing asserted by the Prosecutor in this court are the circumstances that have already been fully considered while determining the sentence against the Defendants, and that there is no new circumstance or change in circumstances to be reflected in the sentencing in the appellate court.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing against the defendants is rejected.

3. Conclusion.