The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the extent that the penalty imposed by the court below is too unfased.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance as an appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Public Official Election Act aims to ensure that the election of public officials, which is the basis of democratic politics, is fair in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and to contribute to the maintenance and development of democratic politics by securing the legitimacy of state power and preventing any malpractice related to the election.

The prohibition of the distribution of composition, etc. has the meaning as an institutional device to ensure fair elections. Therefore, the criminal liability of the defendant who violated it is not easy to violate it.

The circumstances in which the defendant committed a crime for the election of a specific candidate are also peeped.

However, the defendant shows the attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant has no record of being punished as an election crime, and only has the record of being punished as a suspended sentence of a fine once for another type of crime.

The crime of this case influenced the election result.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

In light of the above legal principles, the above circumstances appear to have been fully considered in the original judgment, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the matters which are the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the original judgment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex and environment, means and consequence of the crime, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. and various sentencing conditions, form of sentencing, sentencing guidelines, etc. as shown in the arguments, the sentencing of the lower court is too unfasible within the reasonable scope of discretion.