All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first and second crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant

(a) 1, 2-b;

Punishment 2.5 million won, 2-2 of the decision of the court below as to the crime

(a)2) The fine of 600,000 won for the offence is too unreasonable;

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, who is a candidate for the Do Council member, in excess of 1,557,00 won exceeding 1/200 of the restricted amount of election expenses, and not by the person in charge of accounting, spent election expenses of KRW 43,965,020 and political funds of KRW 10,180,70 not by the person in charge of accounting, and instead spent election expenses of KRW 1 million.

The Defendant’s above crime is an act that damages the purpose of legislation of the Public Official Election Act that strictly regulates election expenses and the transparency of political funds in order to ensure the fair election process and prevent illegal election, and that the method of receiving and disbursing election expenses and political funds other than election expenses is to strictly restrict the methods of receiving and disbursing political funds, and thus, the liability for such crime cannot be deemed to be negligible.

However, in light of the following: (a) the excessive election expenses paid by the Defendant are not about 3.3% of the restricted amount of election expenses; (b) the Defendant’s abortion and resulting in the Defendant’s crime did not have a significant impact on the result of the election; (c) the Defendant was the primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; and (d) other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is within the reasonable scope of discretion.