Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants (two years of suspended execution in the month of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, one hundred and sixty hours community service order, and fine of three million won against the Defendant B) is too unfluent and unreasonable. Defendant A asserts that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case against Defendant A was committed by the Defendant, who is the spouse of the Chungcheongbuk Preliminary Candidate F, employed persons who did not report as election campaign workers in connection with the E election campaign, and provided money and valuables. The crime of this case is not less complicated in that the purpose of the Local Education Autonomy Act, which is to ensure the transparency and fairness of the election, was neglected to prevent any malpractice related to the election.

However, in full view of the fact that money and valuables provided on the record may not exceed the level of ordinary allowances and actual expenses in connection with the election campaign of a preliminary candidate, the actual result of the election is not affected by the waiver and resignation of a preliminary candidate, the defendant recognized all the crimes in this case by the first instance court, and there is no criminal record of the same criminal record or suspended execution, the defendant did not have any criminal record of the same kind of punishment or suspended execution, and other various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, occupation, character and behavior, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, it is not determined that the sentence against the defendant is too heavy or unreasonable.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are without merit.

B. The crime of this case against Defendant B was committed by the Defendant in collusion with Defendant A, employing those who did not report as election campaign workers in connection with the E election campaign, and providing money and valuables, and the liability for the crime was not minor as seen earlier. However, the Defendant is in pro rata relation with Defendant A.