The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, or the sentencing of the original judgment 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, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the contents of the specific case, the sentence of the court below, which returned to the instant case, is too unjustifiable.

1) In light of ① the date and time of the instant crime, the time during which placards are posted and removed, etc., the lower court appears to have a significant impact on the election, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have an attitude contrary to the recognition of the instant crime, the Defendant appears to have no record of criminal punishment except for those subject to a fine for the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and ② posted the banner for the 21st National Assembly Assembly member (before April 15, 2020) at a place where many unspecified persons can see, and this would prejudice the fairness of election by affecting the decision-making or decision-making by electors in a manner that does not permit under the Public Official Election Act.