All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The Defendant, as an accountant in charge of the candidate’s election of National Assembly members, was in a position to strictly manage and control the disbursement of election expenses.

However, the election expenses were paid in excess of the limit amount of election expenses, and the accounting report was made by omitting some items in order to conceal them.

It is not good that these crimes are against the purpose of the law to prevent the election and enhance the fairness and transparency of the political system, thereby creating a new electoral climate.

However, the following are the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) some items that the Defendant did not directly manage due to the candidate’s election campaign that was delayed following the candidate’s election campaign; (c) the amount of excess election expenses is not relatively large; and (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal records of the same kind or suspension of execution.

In addition to these circumstances, the sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor in this Court appear to have been fully considered by the lower court when determining the punishment. In addition, considering the fact that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court since no new data was submitted to this court for the first time, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too heavy, or that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion by being frightened.

The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable are all rejected.

2. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is dismissed on the grounds of merit.