logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2015.01.06 2014노218
업무방해
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B, and D and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following, Defendant A and B- misunderstanding of facts or the Defendants’ proxy voting by fraudulent means can be deemed to constitute a case where the crime of interference with business is not committed by deceptive means or there is no proof of a crime. However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interference with business by deceptive means

1) In short, the principle of direct election is not applied to the electronic voting in the presidential election of U.S. party and the principle of direct election is allowed. In other words, the principle of direct election under the Constitution is divided into ① the direct decision of the candidate supported by the elector and ② the direct election of the candidate himself/herself. The principle of direct election is not applicable to the electronic voting conducted in the presidential election of U.S. candidate for proportional representative election (through the Internet voting system provided by the party). Defendant A’s electronic voting on behalf of Defendant B is restricted only to the directness of the voting itself, and it cannot be deemed that the principle of direct election is entirely denied or damaged. 2) On the premise that Defendant A delegated a voting to Defendant A through a personal authentication procedure and carried out a voting in conformity with the contents delegated by Defendant A, thereby causing the perception of U.S. election commission, namely, the awareness of whether an elector exercised his/her voting right to a specific candidate, or causing any mistake in the perception of whether an elector exercised his/her voting right to a specific candidate, and thus, it does not constitute “false” as it does not exist.

3 U.S. political party did not make it the object of online election affairs from the beginning whether the elector himself/herself has recorded his/her vote in the online market.

arrow