The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal (unfair sentencing) is as follows: (a) the Defendants purchased a large phone for the election campaign of the head of the agricultural cooperative and distributed malicious letters containing false facts about another candidate to the members of the association who are responsible for election campaign; and (b) Defendant A carried out a prior election campaign in violation of the election campaign period for the election campaign of the head of the agricultural cooperative; (c) Defendant A carried out an election campaign in multiple times in violation of the election campaign period; (d) Defendant B carried out an election campaign in violation of the election campaign period for the head of the association; and (e) Defendant B, on the election day, directly carried the aged members of the association on the election day and takes the voting place to the vehicle; (e) there is a possibility that the Defendants’ crime against the Defendants might have had a significant impact on the election result; and (e) the Defendants’ criminal history of criminal punishment is several times, it is too unreasonable to sentence the lower court that sentenced the Defendants to a fine of KRW 6 million.

2. In light of the following factors: (a) the Defendants recognized the Defendants’ mistakes in the trial; (b) Defendant A’s failure in the election of the president of the NAFF; (c) the Defendants were not prosecuted for having provided money or entertainment; (d) the Defendants did not have any history of criminal punishment exceeding fines; and (e) the sentencing cases of similar cases; (c) the motive and background of the instant crime; (d) the circumstances before and after the instant crime was committed; (e) the degree of damage; and (e) other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendants’ character and conduct, environment, etc. as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unscheduled and unreasonable, considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and thus, in accordance with Article 334(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.