The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that: (a) the National Election Commission did not explicitly inform that a proxy vote is prohibited even in the case of electronic voting; (b) there was no disciplinary action by proxy voting; and (c) there was no explicit provision prohibiting online voting in the party constitution and regulations of a political party, the Defendant did not have any awareness as to whether proxy voting is prohibited in the instant proxy voting; and (d) there was no intention in deceptive scheme.

(2) It is difficult to view whether an elector exercises his/her right to vote directly as a competition management of the G political party, and it is difficult to view that the fairness and appropriateness of the competition management of the G political party were impaired by the Defendant’s proxy voting act.

(3) The G Political Party had been aware of the fact that the proxy voting was made, but the G Political Party Election Commission did not limit the number of votes using the same AP (IPs). As such, the act of the Defendant was not attributable to the person in charge of the G Political Party, but due to his insufficient examination and technical limit, the act of the Defendant’s proxy voting cannot be viewed as a deceptive act or the causal relationship is not recognized.

(4) The Defendant did not act on behalf of the electors, but did not act on behalf of the voters at their own will. Thus, the Defendant did not act on behalf of the voters in a deceptive manner.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, “defensive means” in the crime of interference with business through deceptive means 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.