In light of the fact that the defendant's grounds for appeal, mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are not explicitly prohibited in the case of electronic voting, and that there is no explicit provision prohibiting online voting in the party constitution and party regulations of N party, there was no intention to deceptive scheme because there was no awareness about whether proxy voting is prohibited.

It is difficult to see whether a voting right holder exercised his/her right to vote directly as a competition management of N party, and it is difficult to see that the fairness and appropriateness of the competition management of N party have been harmed by Defendant’s act.

The defendant's proxy voting act cannot be viewed as a deceptive act or there is no causal relationship, because the person in charge of Nparty did not have any awareness, mistake, etc. due to the defendant's act, but it was done by himself due to insufficient examination and technical limit.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

The reasoning of the lower court’s appeal by the prosecutor is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

Judgment

In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means of the legal principles applicable to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, “defensive means that an offender misleads the other party, misleads the other party, or uses the land to achieve the purpose of the act. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and if the propriety or fairness of the business is hindered, the crime of interference with business is

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). The intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interfering with business or planned interference with business.