The appeal is dismissed.

Article 314(1) and Article 313 of the Criminal Act shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for the purposes of the law of the court of first instance.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In the crime of interference with business through fraudulent means that an actor misleads the other party or causes a misunderstanding, dismissal, or site to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established even if the propriety or fairness of the business is hindered, not in itself.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Furthermore, in cases 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 person in charge of duties was not directly intended

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below determined that the act of taking electronic voting to N, a candidate that he supports in the name of D Party 19 to recommend the candidates for proportional representative candidates for the 19th National Assembly members and received only a certification number from the electors, constitutes an act of causing persons related to the competition business in the instant case to mistake and perceive facts concerning the support rate, etc. of the candidates for proportional representative candidates in the instant case, thereby hindering the appropriateness or fairness of the competition business, and the act of using the computer in the said crime is merely a means of crime.

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of interference with business

2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and Article 314 of the Criminal Code applies to the case of the court of first instance.