The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and the current status of party constitution and party regulations, the Defendants did not have awareness as to whether proxy voting is prohibited, and therefore there was no intention of deceptive scheme.

It is difficult to see that the fairness and appropriateness of the competition business in the party by the acts of the defendants were harmed, and even if not, there is no causal relationship between the acts of the defendants and the result of interference with the business since there is no sufficient examination or technical limit of the person in charge of the affairs.

Whether or not a voter exercises his/her right to vote in person shall not be considered a deceptive scheme, because it is not within the scope of the affairs related to the competition management of a Tparty.

The punishment imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the fine of 1.5 million won per 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

As in this case, the principle of general election, such as direct, equal, secret voting, etc., of party members holding voting rights, shall not be allowed by proxy voting (the court below fully stated the grounds therefor). On the other hand, in the crime of interference with business by deceptive means, the term "defensive means" means causing mistake, mistake or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act and using it, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not need to be actually generated, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, and it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established even if the propriety or fairness of the business is hindered, not by itself.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, a thorough examination of the evidence reveals ① In the case of on-the-spot voting, the elector shall personally record the voting in the case of on-site voting.