So I was trying to prove that the characteristic of an integral domain is either $0$ or prime. I got stuck, so I searched for a proof and I came across the following proof online
Now I almost want to accept this proof, except for the following (possibly silly and pedantic) issue. In the above proof we know that $n_0 \in \mathbb{N} \subseteq \mathbb{Z}$, so since $n$ is not prime, we factorize $n = m \cdot k$ (where $\cdot$ represents multiplication on the integers in the ring $(\mathbb{Z}, +, \cdot)$). Now in the above proof the following is asserted $$n(1_D) = \underbrace{1_D + \dots + 1_D}_{n \text{ times}} =0_D \implies m\cdot k(1_D) = \underbrace{\left(1_D + \dots + 1_D\right)}_{m \text{ times}} \ \bullet \underbrace{\left(1_D + \dots + 1_D\right)}_{k \text{ times}}$$
Now seemingly it seems that multiplication of $m$ and $k$ in $\mathbb{Z}$ is inducing (ring) multiplication of elements in $D$ (when I thought we'd only end up with addition of the $1_D$'s $mk$ times).
Is there a reason why this happens?

This happens simply because by induction and definition of $k\cdot 1_D$, one may prove $(n\cdot 1_D)\times (m\cdot 1_D) = nm\cdot 1_D$.
The proof by induction on, say, $m$ is easy : $(n\cdot 1_D)((m+1)\cdot 1_D) = (n\cdot 1_D)(m\cdot 1_D + 1_D) =...$