All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The handling of ID, password, and authentication number on the Internet voting system is automatically processed by computer, and there is no room for people to intervene. Therefore, it does not constitute a deceptive scheme to omit people's mistake. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles (to the extent it supplements the grounds for appeal, which is not timely filed by the defendant's defense counsel).

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants reached the instant case with the consent of the voter’s proxy voting, active cooperation in the investigation of the instant case, and all the Defendants are suffering from economic difficulties, the respective punishment of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of three million won, and fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means of determining the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of the crime of interference with business, the crime of interference with business refers to using deceptive means by causing mistake, dismissal or land to the other party in order 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

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5814, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Internet voting by D party is determined by the sequence of proportional representation.