The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Improper sentencing on the gist of the grounds of appeal: The sentence to be declared by the lower court (500,000 won in penalty) is too unfilled.

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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the first instance sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (i) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the Act on the Election of Public Officials provides that the Defendant would ensure that the election is held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures; and (ii) the Act on the Election of Public Officials would strictly limit the payment of money and valuables to the Defendant in violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials, regardless of the pretext other than allowances and actual expenses, and strictly punish the Defendant, regardless of the pretext thereof; (iii) the Defendant, as a accountant in charge of the candidate for the election of National Assembly members, and as a member of the local council who held office concurrently with the election, paid allowances against the provisions that prohibit the payment of allowances to the Defendant.

In full view of the circumstances properly expressed by the court below, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in this case, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.