The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, entered a certification number in the Internet electronic voting system on behalf of electors at the time of the competition in the party, and cast votes to a specific candidate. The above electronic voting system cannot be deemed to exist by itself as an act of omitting the other party as referred to in the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, which is automatically processed by computers without human intervention.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the charged facts of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) 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, “defensive 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 is not required to actually occur, and if the propriety or fairness of the business is hindered, the crime of interference with business shall be established

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s act includes the one who was involved in the intra-party competition and the one who was eligible for election campaign and the one who was eligible for election campaign and exercises the right to vote in a normal manner after the Defendant received only a certification number from the electors and subsequently distorted or distorted the elector’s genuine intent. In so doing, the Defendant unilaterally exercised the right to vote against N, who is a candidate to support him/her, regardless of the elector’s genuine intent.