2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants, prior to the 19th National Assembly members election, and thereby obstructing the business of the competition management of Tparty by deceptive means by allowing X or AD to cast a proxy vote during the party competition process for recommending candidates for proportional representation of the National Assembly members of T Party, and thus infringing on the people’s trust that the primary value of representative democracy and proportional representation system would be fair, and thus, the nature of each of the instant crimes was somewhat weak.

However, on the other hand, the defendants led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case, and the defendants are deemed to have been involved in the act of proxy voting at X or AD's request or request, and the defendants expect any consideration or profit and do not seem to have reached each of the crimes of this case. The victim Telecommunication did not prepare sufficient technical measures to prevent proxy voting in establishing the online election system, which led to the occurrence of each of the crimes of this case, and there are no records of having been sentenced to punishment exceeding fines, and the remaining defendants are first offenders without any special criminal power.

It seems that there is no change in special circumstances to change the sentence of the court below when it comes to the above various circumstances, and in particular, there is an inherent limit in the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of accountability that the discretion on the sentencing of the court of fact-finding should be a proper balance between crime and punishment. However, there is an inherent limit in the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of accountability that the punishment should be based on its responsibility and proportional thereto.