All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants (the defendant A: the fine of 900,000 won, the fine of 700,000 won, the fine of 700,000 won) is too un

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case as to Defendant A was committed in collusion with Co-Defendant B, who is the representative (the president) of the F Council affiliated with the F Council, a national movement organization established under a special Act, and the defendant, the representative of the E Council (the president) and carried out an election campaign for the voters, who are members of the F Council under the Public Official Election Act, in violation of the provisions on the restriction on election campaign by the representative of the national movement organization under the Public Official Election Act and the restrictions on the transmission of text messages by automatic broadcast communication method, and thus, the crime is not easy. At the time of the crime, the crime of this case was committed 6 times scheduled on June 4, 2014, which did not remain outside the two framework, and thus, it seems that the situation could have a direct impact on the voting direction of the voters, and there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the fact that text messages was sent to approximately 500 persons.

However, the defendant's act of sending text messages is against his depth while committing his own crime, the act of sending text messages itself is about one time, and the main motive for the crime was not complaining for support for a specific candidate that conforms to his ideology and tendency, but it appears that there was no evidence to recognize any additional motive (in addition, there is no direct and specific evidence on the circumstance that the defendant carried out excessive election campaign for a specific candidate). Although the defendant was elected, it is considered that the defendant's appeal for support was made in light of the second candidate's obtained votes.