All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A, B, C, and D: each fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant E: fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, B, C, and D (Defendant A, B, C, and D) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). As to the instant case, the lower court determined each type of punishment against the Defendants by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing favorable or unfavorable to the Defendants, and other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, compared to the lower court’s judgment, there is no special change in the sentencing conditions, and the Defendants made efforts to ensure the rights and interests of the disabled persons as the former incumbent officers and employees of the disabled organizations. On the other hand, considering the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act that intends to guarantee the objectivity and fairness of the election, the lower judgment’s sentencing is too excessive for the Defendants, or it is not recognized that the lower judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by excessively unfilleding against Defendants A, B, C, and D.

Therefore, the defendants A, B, C, and C by the prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing and prosecutor.