All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that it is physically impossible to grasp whether a voter has a direct vote due to the technical limit of the online election system, the National Election Commission provided that the proxy vote is prohibited even in the case of electronic voting, and that there was no provision explicitly prohibiting the online election in the party constitution and party regulations of Tparty, the Defendants did not have any awareness as to whether a proxy vote is not allowed, and thus, they did not have an intention by deceptive means. 2) Whether a voter has exercised a direct vote is difficult to regard it as a competition management of the T Party, and it is difficult to see that the fairness and appropriateness of the competition management of the T Party were harmed by the Defendants’ proxy voting.

3) The Tparty has been aware of the fact that the voting by proxy was held, and the T Party Election Commission did not limit the number of voting by using the same son (IP), so the causal relationship is not acknowledged because the person in charge of the business of the T Party did not fall under the misunderstanding, misunderstanding, etc., due to the acts of the Defendants, but falls under one’s own misunderstanding and misunderstanding due to insufficient examination and technical limit. (B) Defendant N did not delegate the right to vote to the Defendant A, and Defendant N cast the vote directly. (c) Even if the Defendants’ act is found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (the Defendants: 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended sentence, 4 years of suspended sentence, 1 year of imprisonment, 4 months of suspended sentence, 1 year of suspended sentence, 6 million won of imprisonment, 2 million won of fine: Defendant C, D, E, G, I, H, I, J, K, M, M: 150 million won of fine for negligence against the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on a deceptive scheme.