All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the punishment (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and violated the mistake by recognizing the crime.

It is not significant to have property interest but to have a significant impact on the result of the election of this case nine electors who received it.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

However, the crime of this case is an act of providing convenience in means of transportation by allowing the Defendants to leave a large number of voters on the election day so that they can vote to the polling station for the purpose of causing them to vote, and is an act of causing distortion of the outcome of election by unfairly affecting the free decision-making of voters.

In this context, the Defendants’ status at the time of committing the crime, the relationship between the Defendants and the instant election, and the details of each currency of M M, which operated the instant vehicle with the Defendants on the day of committing the crime (the Defendants did not stop the act of providing a vehicle even though they transferred to the fact that they received a vehicle operation restriction from an employee belonging to the Election Management Committee, while Defendant B did not stop the act of providing a vehicle from the employees belonging to the Election Management Committee.

Considering the fact that the Defendants’ liability for the crime is not easy but is highly likely to criticize if they consider that the Defendants continued to provide a vehicle while speaking.

In addition to these circumstances, all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendants’ age, sex, career, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, etc., and no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial of the Supreme Court; compared to the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).