Deep Research Archives

The Equation of Power: Deconstructing South Korea's 1954 "Sasa-oip" Incident and its Global Context

Introduction: The Infamous Equation of Power

In the annals of constitutional history, few events so brazenly merge political ambition with the distortion of logic as South Korea's "Sasa-oip Gaeheon" (사사오입 개헌) of November 1954. This incident, whose name translates to the "rounding to the nearest integer amendment," stands as a pivotal and notorious moment in the nation's turbulent journey toward democracy. It was not merely a political maneuver to extend a president's term; it was a profound assault on the principles of democracy and the rule of law, executed through the cynical manipulation of mathematical language. The event saw the government of President Syngman Rhee retroactively declare a failed constitutional amendment as passed by invoking a fallacious interpretation of rounding. The Sasa-oip incident is unique not because other leaders have failed to bend rules for power, but because of its specific method: the co-opting of mathematical terminology to create a veneer of legitimacy for a fundamentally illogical and illegal act. This report will dissect the historical context of the event, deconstruct its flawed mathematical and legal reasoning, and argue that its true global parallel lies not in similar political scandals, but in the universal standards of precision and integrity from which it deviated. In doing so, this analysis will highlight the exceptional nature of the Sasa-oip incident as a perversion of logic in the service of autocracy. This examination is structured in three parts: a historical narrative of the amendment, a technical deconstruction of the "rounding" fallacy, and a comparative analysis of how rules of precision are treated in legitimate global contexts.

Part I: The Anatomy of the "Sasa-oip" Amendment

Section 1.1: The Political Climate of the First Republic

The First Republic of Korea, established in 1948 under President Syngman Rhee, was born from the ashes of Japanese colonial rule and the painful division of the Korean peninsula. The original 1948 Constitution established a presidential system with a four-year term, permitting a single reelection.1 However, from the outset, President Rhee demonstrated a willingness to mold the nation's foundational laws to fit his political needs. This pattern of constitutional manipulation was first made apparent in 1952. Facing declining support within the National Assembly, which was originally tasked with electing the president, Rhee forced through the "Balchwoe Gaeheon" (발췌 개헌), or "Excerpt Amendment." This controversial change switched the presidential election from an indirect legislative vote to a direct popular vote, allowing Rhee to bypass the increasingly hostile legislature and appeal directly to the public to secure his second term.1 This event established a critical precedent, signaling that the constitution was not an immutable charter but a malleable tool for power retention. The stage for the 1954 crisis was set by the general election held in May of that year. The election was notoriously fraught with irregularities and the mobilization of state police power, earning it the moniker "'곤봉 선거' (Baton Election)".2 Despite these efforts, Rhee's Liberal Party secured only 114 of the 203 seats in the National Assembly. This was a majority, but it fell critically short of the two-thirds—136 votes—required to pass a constitutional amendment.2 This shortfall was the direct catalyst for the political machinations that followed. To overcome this obstacle, the Liberal Party engaged in a campaign of pressure and coercion, inducing independent lawmakers to join their ranks to reach the 136-member threshold necessary to formally propose their desired amendment.2 These events reveal a clear escalatory pattern in the regime's subversion of democratic norms. The 1952 amendment demonstrated a willingness to change the fundamental rules of the political game when they became unfavorable. The 1954 election showed a readiness to subvert the process of the game through coercion. The Sasa-oip incident would represent the final, most audacious step: the outright fabrication of the results of the game after it had already been lost. It was not a spontaneous trick but the logical, albeit illegal, progression of an increasingly authoritarian power grab.

Section 1.2: The Amendment, the Vote, and the Constitutional Crisis

The primary objective of the proposed second constitutional amendment was transparently self-serving: to abolish the presidential term limit, but exclusively for the nation's first president, Syngman Rhee himself.1 This would grant him the ability to run for a third term and, theoretically, for life. The amendment package also included other significant changes, such as eliminating the office of Prime Minister, strengthening the cabinet system, and shifting the constitutional basis of the economy toward free-market principles.1 On November 27, 1954, the National Assembly convened to vote on the amendment. With 203 members in the chamber, the constitutional requirement for passage was an affirmative vote from two-thirds of the members. The mathematical calculation was unambiguous:

203×32​=135.333...

Since a vote is an indivisible unit representing a person, any fractional requirement must be rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, 136 votes were needed for the amendment to pass. The final tally was 135 in favor, 60 opposed, 7 abstentions, and 1 invalid vote.4 As the number of affirmative votes was 135, one short of the required 136, the Assembly's vice-chairman, Choi Sun-ju, declared the amendment defeated.2 What followed was an unprecedented subversion of parliamentary procedure. Two days later, on November 29, the Liberal Party abruptly reversed the decision. They convened the Assembly and presented a novel and contorted argument. Citing a mathematical principle known as "Sasa-oip"—the common practice of rounding numbers where 4 and below are dropped and 5 and above are rounded up—they claimed that the fractional part of 135.333... should be discarded. Because 0.333... is less than 0.5, they argued, it should be rounded down, making the actual requirement 135 votes.4 Based on this fabricated logic, they asserted that the 135 votes they had received were sufficient for passage. Amidst furious protests and a walkout by opposition lawmakers, the Liberal Party unilaterally passed a motion to "revoke the declaration of defeat" and proclaimed the constitutional amendment passed.2 This act was a flagrant violation of established legal principles and parliamentary rules, plunging the young republic into a constitutional crisis.7 The regime's choice of justification was a deliberate one. Rather than claiming a simple miscount or forcing a revote, they opted for a pseudo-scientific argument. This tactic was a form of political gaslighting, intended to shift the public debate away from the simple, factual question of "Did they have enough votes?"—to which the answer was clearly 'no'—and toward the confusing, manufactured question of "How should fractions be interpreted in constitutional law?" It was a strategy to obscure a simple truth with manufactured complexity.

Section 1.3: Political and Societal Aftermath: The Erosion of Democracy

The immediate consequence of the Sasa-oip amendment was the removal of the final constitutional check on Syngman Rhee's rule, effectively paving the way for a lifetime presidency and the further entrenchment of his authoritarian regime.1 By rewriting the nation's highest law for his personal benefit, Rhee signaled that his power superseded the foundational principles of the republic. However, the flagrantly illegal nature of the act had the unintended effect of galvanizing the political opposition. The regime's blatant disregard for the rule of law served as a powerful rallying cry, uniting previously disparate opposition forces. This consolidation led to the formation of the Democratic Party (민주당), which would become the main challenger to Rhee's Liberal Party.2 The Sasa-oip incident, therefore, ironically sowed the seeds of a more organized and potent opposition. This event is a critical link in the causal chain that led to the downfall of the First Republic. It shattered any remaining democratic legitimacy the Rhee government possessed in the eyes of the public. This erosion of trust and legitimacy set the stage for the massively fraudulent presidential election of March 15, 1960. When the regime attempted to install Rhee's running mate, Lee Ki-poong, as Vice President through widespread rigging, the public's pent-up anger exploded. The ensuing protests culminated in the April 19 Revolution, a student-led popular uprising that forced Syngman Rhee to resign and flee the country, bringing his twelve-year rule to an end.7 Beyond its immediate consequences, the Sasa-oip amendment cast a long and dark shadow over South Korean politics. It established a dangerous precedent that the constitution could be treated as a mere tool for extending a ruler's power rather than a sacred, binding document. This legacy was later invoked by another authoritarian leader, Park Chung-hee, who in 1969 forced through a constitutional amendment to allow himself a third term and then, in 1972, imposed the Yushin Constitution, which granted him virtually unlimited power and a lifetime presidency.4 The logic of Sasa-oip—that the law is subordinate to the will of the ruler—became a recurring theme in South Korea's periods of authoritarianism.

Part II: Deconstructing the "Mathematical" Justification

Section 2.1: The Principle of Rounding in Mathematics and Computing

To fully grasp the fallacy of the Sasa-oip incident, one must first understand the legitimate purpose and methods of rounding. Rounding is a mathematical technique used to simplify a number to a less precise but more manageable form. It is essential in fields where numbers must conform to a specific level of precision, such as in finance, engineering, and computer science, where data is stored with a finite number of bits.10 Several distinct rounding methods exist, each with specific rules and applications. Round Half Up (Arithmetic Rounding): This is the method most commonly taught in primary schools and is analogous to the concept of "Sasa-oip." If the first digit to be discarded is 5 or greater, the last retained digit is increased by 1. For example, 7.5 is rounded to 8, while 7.4 is rounded to 7.13 Round Half to Even (Banker's Rounding): This method is designed to minimize the statistical bias that can accumulate in large datasets from consistently rounding the halfway value of 0.5 in the same direction. When the first digit to be discarded is exactly 5, the number is rounded to the nearest even integer. For instance, 7.5 is rounded up to 8 (an even number), but 6.5 is rounded down to 6 (also an even number). This is the default rounding method in the IEEE 754 international standard for floating-point computation and in many modern programming languages.11 Directed Rounding (Floor and Ceiling): These methods do not round to the "nearest" value but always in a specific direction. Floor (Round Down): Always rounds to the integer that is less than or equal to the original number. For example, 7.8 becomes 7, and -7.2 becomes -8.17 Ceiling (Round Up): Always rounds to the integer that is greater than or equal to the original number. For example, 7.2 becomes 8, and -7.8 becomes -7.17 Truncation (Round toward Zero): This method simply discards the fractional part of a number, regardless of its value. For example, 7.8 becomes 7, and -7.8 becomes -7.18 The existence of these varied and specific methods underscores that rounding is not an arbitrary act but a precise operation chosen to fit a particular context. The following table illustrates how these methods produce different results, highlighting the importance of choosing the correct one. Input Value Round Half Up (Sasa-oip) Round Half to Even Floor (Round Down) Ceiling (Round Up) Truncate (Round toward Zero) 7.8 8 8 7 8 7 7.5 8 8 7 8 7 7.333 7 7 7 8 7 -7.5 -7 -8 -8 -7 -7 135.333... 135 135 135 136 135

Section 2.2: The "Sasa-oip" Fallacy: A Deliberate Misapplication of Logic and Law

The justification for the Sasa-oip amendment was not merely a misunderstanding of mathematics; it was a multi-layered fallacy that deliberately perverted both legal and mathematical principles. The First Fallacy: Applying Rounding to a Legal Threshold. The fundamental error was to treat a legal quorum—a minimum number of required votes—as a continuous number that could be rounded. Constitutional requirements for passing legislation are discrete thresholds. A requirement of $135.333...$ votes logically means that 135 votes are insufficient and a minimum of 136 whole, indivisible votes are necessary to meet or exceed the threshold. One cannot have a fraction of a vote from a lawmaker. In mathematical terms, a minimum requirement functions as a "floor" that must be met or surpassed. Therefore, the only legally and logically sound operation is to take the ceiling of the required number, which is 136.11 Any other interpretation is nonsensical in a legislative context. The Second Fallacy: Inconsistent Application of the Stated Rule. Even if one were to entertain the absurd premise of rounding the requirement, the Liberal Party's application of its own supposed rule was internally inconsistent. They named their method "Sasa-oip," which corresponds to the "round half up" method.15 Applying this rule to $135.333...$, where the discarded fraction is less than 0.5, would indeed result in 135. However, the government's action was not truly rounding; it was simply truncation—they chopped off the decimal part.18 This reveals that the name "Sasa-oip" was not chosen for its descriptive accuracy but for its populist appeal. It is the rounding method taught to schoolchildren, making the justification sound familiar and simple, thus masking the illogical nature of the act itself.21 The Third Fallacy: Violation of the Principle of Non-Retroactivity. Perhaps the most egregious violation was legal, not mathematical. The decision to apply this "new" interpretation of the voting quorum was made two days after the vote had been cast and officially declared defeated. This is a blatant violation of the fundamental legal principle of non-retroactivity, which holds that the rules of a contest cannot be changed after the outcome is known to benefit one side.23 The Rhee government did not just bend the rules; it waited until the game was over, saw that it had lost, and then announced a new way of keeping score. This series of fallacies demonstrates a deliberate strategy. The regime weaponized a "common sense" idea—basic schoolhouse rounding—against the more complex but correct principles of legal and mathematical logic. The architects of this scheme likely understood that the average citizen would recognize the term "Sasa-oip" but would not immediately grasp the nuances of why it was wholly inapplicable to a constitutional quorum. By framing the debate around a familiar but distorted concept, they pitted flawed common sense against rigorous logic, creating enough confusion to provide a thin veil for their power grab.

Part III: Global Perspectives on Rounding, Rules, and the Rule of Law

Section 3.1: Rounding as a Tool of Precision, Not Politics

To answer whether the "Sasa-oip" system is unique to Korea, it is instructive to examine how rounding is treated in global contexts where precision and fairness are paramount. In these domains, rounding is a carefully regulated tool of precision, not a political instrument for manipulation. Case Study: Financial Reporting (GAAP & FASB) In the world of finance, accuracy and representational faithfulness are foundational. Global standards like Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the rules set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) mandate that underlying financial calculations be performed with high precision.24 Rounding is permitted, and indeed common, for presentation purposes in financial statements—for example, reporting figures in thousands or millions of dollars to improve readability. However, these standards come with strict stipulations: rounding must not materially alter or mislead the reader about the underlying financial reality.26 Rules often require that totals be calculated from unrounded numbers first and then rounded, to prevent the accumulation of rounding errors.28 The entire purpose of financial rounding is to simplify presentation while preserving the integrity of the data. The Sasa-oip incident is the philosophical antithesis of this principle; it used a rounding argument specifically to create a false and misleading result. Case Study: Computing and Programming (IEEE 754) The IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic (IEEE 754) is the international benchmark for how computers perform calculations with non-integer numbers.29 This standard was created to ensure that computations are consistent, predictable, and accurate across different hardware and software platforms. It defines several strict rounding modes, with the default being "round half to even" (also known as Banker's Rounding).11 This specific mode was chosen because it is statistically unbiased. By rounding halfway values (like 2.5) to the nearest even number (2), it avoids the systemic upward bias that would result from always rounding them up. Over millions of calculations, this prevents significant cumulative errors.31 This global technical consensus on the need for fair, predictable, and unbiased rounding rules stands in stark contrast to the Sasa-oip incident, which was a one-off, ad-hoc, and maximally biased "rule" invented solely to achieve a predetermined political outcome.

Table 2: Rounding Defaults in Major Programming Languages

The global technical consensus on proper rounding is further evidenced by the default behaviors of major programming languages. These systems are built on rules, and their handling of ambiguity reflects a commitment to consistency and, in many cases, statistical fairness.

Language/Standard Default Method for Midpoint Values (e.g., 2.5) Rationale / Snippet Reference Python 3 Round Half to Even (Banker's Rounding) round(2.5) is 2; round(3.5) is 4. Minimizes statistical bias. 16 JavaScript (Math.round()) Round Half Up (toward +∞) Math.round(2.5) is 3; Math.round(-2.5) is -2. A common but biased method. 33 Java (Math.round()) Round Half Up Math.round(2.5) is 3. Follows common arithmetic rounding taught in schools. 19 .NET (C#) (Math.Round()) Round Half to Even (Banker's Rounding) The default is MidpointRounding.ToEven specifically to reduce cumulative rounding error. 31 IEEE 754 Standard Round Half to Even (Banker's Rounding) The international standard for floating-point arithmetic, designed for accuracy and bias reduction. 11

Section 3.2: The Uniqueness of the "Sasa-oip" Incident

Given this global context, the answer to the user's core question becomes clear. Is the "Sasa-oip" system unique to Korea? Yes. The specific event—the use of a fallacious mathematical rounding argument to unconstitutionally validate a failed legislative vote—is a uniquely infamous incident in South Korean history. There is no known parallel of another sovereign nation employing this exact pseudo-mathematical logic to alter a vote count and amend its constitution. However, while the method is unique, the motive is tragically universal. History is replete with examples of authoritarian leaders manipulating rules, intimidating legislatures, falsifying election results, and rewriting constitutions to eliminate term limits and consolidate power. The uniqueness of Sasa-oip lies not in the power grab itself, but in its distinctively pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-mathematical justification, which sets it apart from more common forms of electoral fraud or brute-force coercion.

Section 3.3: Comparative Analysis: "Rule by Law" vs. "Rule of Law"

A more sophisticated way to place the Sasa-oip incident in a global context is to view it through the lens of two competing philosophies of governance: the "rule of law" versus "rule by law." Rule of Law: This is a principle of governance where all persons, institutions, and entities, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. In this system, the law is supreme, and no one is above it. Rule by Law: This is a system where law is used as a mere instrument of the state to control its citizens. The government is not bound by the law and can create, ignore, or change it at will to serve its own interests. In this system, the state is supreme, and the law is its tool. The Sasa-oip incident serves as a textbook example of a government operating under the principle of rule by law. The Rhee administration used the form of a legal process—a constitutional amendment—to subvert the substance of the constitution, which was the supreme law that was supposed to bind them.7 By inventing a new "interpretation" of a number to achieve a political goal, the government demonstrated that it saw the law not as a constraint on its power, but as an instrument to be wielded in service of that power. This conceptual framework provides a means of comparison to other authoritarian regimes globally, which may use different tactics but share the same underlying philosophy of placing the ruler above the law.

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of a Flawed Calculation

The 1954 Sasa-oip Gaeheon was a calculated and unconstitutional act, driven by President Syngman Rhee's ambition for perpetual power. Its justification was a multi-layered fallacy that perverted fundamental principles of both law and mathematics. The requirement for a constitutional majority was not a number to be rounded but a minimum threshold to be met, and the retroactive invention of a new scoring rule after the vote had been lost was an affront to the very concept of law. The uniqueness of this event lies not in the desire for power, which is a common theme in political history, but in its specific method of pseudo-logical justification. This approach stands in stark contrast to global standards of precision and integrity found in fields like finance and computer science, where rounding rules are strict, predictable, and designed to ensure fairness and accuracy. In South Korea, the term "Sasa-oip" has become a permanent part of the political lexicon, a shorthand for illogical sophistry, the arbitrary abuse of power, and the manipulation of rules to fit a desired outcome. It serves as an enduring cautionary tale about the fragility of democratic institutions and the constant need for vigilance against those who would place themselves above the law. The Sasa-oip incident ultimately demonstrates a timeless truth: while numbers themselves may not lie, they can be weaponized by those who are willing to lie with them. The true defense against such manipulation is not just mathematical literacy, but a steadfast societal commitment to the principle that the rules that govern a nation must be held supreme over the rulers themselves. 참고 자료 History of Korea's constitutional amendments - The Korea Times, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/politics/20250519/history-of-koreas-constitutional-amendments 사사오입개헌 1954 - 우리역사넷, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://contents.history.go.kr/mobile/kc/view.do?levelId=kc_i502350&code=kc_age_50 contents.history.go.kr, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://contents.history.go.kr/mobile/kc/view.do?levelId=kc_i502350&code=kc_age_50#:~:text=%EC%9E%85%ED%9B%84%EB%B3%B4%20%EA%B3%BC%EC%A0%95%EA%B3%BC%20%EC%84%A0%EA%B1%B0%EC%9A%B4%EB%8F%99,15%EC%84%9D%EC%9D%84%20%ED%9A%8D%EB%93%9D%ED%96%88%EB%8B%A4. Constitutional History of Korea | ConstitutionNet, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://constitutionnet.org/country/republic-korea Constitution of South Korea - Wikipedia, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_South_Korea 사사오입 개헌 - 셀럽 | 국회 보좌진 커뮤니티 & 뉴스레터, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.selub.us/newsletter/political-history/7 개정 > 제2차 개헌 - 국가기록원>기록물열람>통합검색>국정분야 ..., 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.archives.go.kr/next/newsearch/listSubjectDescription.do?id=001432&sitePage= 사사오입 개헌 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%82%AC%EC%82%AC%EC%98%A4%EC%9E%85_%EA%B0%9C%ED%97%8C 사사오입 개헌(四捨五入 改憲) - 한국민족문화대백과사전, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Article/E0025681 Rounding Techniques | A concept on AnyLearn, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://anylearn.ai/concept/rounding-techniques Comparison of different rounding modes - arXiv, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.00489 Number limits, overflow, and roundoff | AP CSP (article) - Khan Academy, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computers-and-internet/xcae6f4a7ff015e7d:digital-information/xcae6f4a7ff015e7d:limitations-of-storing-numbers/a/number-limits-overflow-and-roundoff Rounding Numbers - GeeksforGeeks, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/physics/rounding-numbers/ Rounding Algorithms Compared - EE Times, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.eetimes.com/an-introduction-to-different-rounding-algorithms/ simple.wikipedia.org, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#:~:text=The%20following%20tie%2Dbreaking%20rule,then%20q%20%3D%20y%20%2B%200.5. Default rounding mode in python, and how to specify it to another one? - Stack Overflow, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34030509/default-rounding-mode-in-python-and-how-to-specify-it-to-another-one Rounding Methods - Math is Fun, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/rounding-methods.html Rounding - Wikipedia, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding Fundamentals: Different Rounding Algorithms - Clive Maxfield, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.clivemaxfield.com/coolbeans/fundamentals-different-rounding-algorithms/ RoundingMode (Java Platform SE 8 ) - Oracle Help Center, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/math/RoundingMode.html What Is Rounding Numbers In Math? Explained For Elementary - Third Space Learning, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://thirdspacelearning.com/us/blog/what-is-rounding-numbers-math/ The Best Way to Teach Rounding Numbers - The Recovering Traditionalist, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.therecoveringtraditionalist.com/best-way-teach-rounding-numbers/ CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq=1 GAAP; Rounding Sample Clauses - Law Insider, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/gaap-rounding Summary of Statement No. 157 - FASB, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.fasb.org/page/PageContent?pageId=/reference-library/superseded-standards/summary-of-statement-no-157.html&bcpath=tff Standard 5-3 : NCES Statistical Standards, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/std5_3.asp Rounding Numbers in the Financial Domain! - Founding Minds, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.foundingminds.com/rounding-numbers-in-the-financial-domain/ Rounding on reports and financial statements - Thomson Reuters, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/helpandsupp/en-us/help/workpapers-cs/report-designer/rounding-on-reports-and-financial-statements.html IEEE 754 - Wikipedia, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754 5.3. Rounding Schemes - Intel, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/programmable/683242/current/rounding-schemes.html Math.Round Method (System) | Microsoft Learn, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.math.round?view=net-9.0 How to Round Numbers in Python, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://realpython.com/python-rounding/ A Guide to Rounding Numbers in JavaScript - SitePoint, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://www.sitepoint.com/rounding-numbers-javascript/ Math.round() - JavaScript - MDN Web Docs, 8월 12, 2025에 액세스, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math/round