The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime because he did not know of the Public Official Election Act properly, that the instant crime did not have a significant impact on the result of the election, and that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and opposed to it, the lower court’s sentence (300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed by the defendant, who is a member of the Dong Residents' Self-Governing Committee, who is unable to carry out an election campaign, was engaged in an election campaign, such as moving other election campaign members to the place of election campaign, wearing promotion caps and diskettes, and conducting personnel affairs on vehicles passing through, with the intention of having them elected E for the 19th President Election D.

Since the defendant seems to have caused the crime of this case because he was unable to know properly the Public Official Election Act, there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances. The crime of this case is minor about the degree of violation of the election campaign method, and the crime of this case seems not to have an influence on the election. The defendant is in the position of members and office members of the residents' autonomous committee after this case, there is no record of punishment or punishment heavier than a fine, and the defendant is in favor of the defendant when recognizing the crime of this case.

However, in full view of the fact that the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act causes damage to the fairness of election, so strict punishment is required, that the defendant has been punished twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and that there are other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., the sentence of the court below that sentenced a fine of KRW 30,000,000 not restricting the defendant's voting rights and voting rights within the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Decision on the sentencing guidelines is too unreasonable.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.