All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendants 1) In light of the fact that there is no provision explicitly prohibiting online elections in the party constitution and party constitution or party constitution of V parties, and the National Election Commission explicitly provided that proxy voting is prohibited even in the case of electronic voting, and there is no disciplinary action or any question in such a case, the Defendants did not have the intent of deceptive scheme. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B, and C: each fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

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

Judgment

A. 1) In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, “a deceptive scheme” means that an offender misleads the other party, misleads the other party, or uses a site in order to achieve the purpose of the act.

The establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, and the risk of causing the result of interference with business is sufficient, and the crime of interference with business is established even if the propriety or fairness of the business

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Furthermore, where an act of inputting information into an information processing device, such as a computer, was performed for the purpose of causing mistake, mistake, or site of a person in charge of duties based on the input information, etc., the act constitutes a deceptive scheme even if the act was not directly intended for a person in

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117 Decided November 28, 2013). On the other hand, the intent of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business.