All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (2 million won in penalty), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfied and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In a case where the appellate court’s sentencing determination is deemed unfair in light of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment below’s unreasonable determination of the sentence (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court’s sentence return to the instant case is too heavy or too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

1) The lower court: (a) under the circumstances that: (a) the instant crime was committed by the Defendant by providing meals to the electorates, etc. for the candidate to run in an election for public office; (b) the Defendant committed a contribution act by providing meals to the electorates, etc.; and (c) the Defendant obstructed the investigation in line with the relevant persons and horses in an investigative agency; or (d) attempted to destroy evidence by obstructing the expiration of the prescription period; (b) the Defendant appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect the Defendant’s mistake after the prosecution; and (c) the amount of the food representative provided by the Defendant is relatively large; and (d) the result of the election was significantly affected.