beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017고정1711

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)등

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant from around June 21, 2015 to around 20:56

8. 14. 20:21 경까지 의정부시 이하 불상지에서 휴대폰을 이용하여 피해자 C의 휴대폰으로 " 씨 발아, 개새끼가 계속 지랄이야, 씨 발 놈이 쫄았어

Domine Ma. Domine Domine Domine Domin Domine Domine Domin Domine Domin Domine Domine Domine Domine b

Sicker’s sending of text messages, such as Sicker’s “Sicker”, continuously.

As a result, the Defendant sent text messages, etc. to the victim several times without good cause.

The person is bullying.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written complaint, a written statement prepared by the police against C, and each investigation report against C (in cases of data submitted for evidence of insult by a complainant, accompanied by a written request for identification and transfer of a suspect and a suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article 3(1)40 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (Amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; Act No. 14839, Jan. 40,

1. 50,00 won of a fine to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the issue of Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (see, e.g., the following favorable circumstances) of the Criminal Act, the defendant and his defense counsel did not send the victim’s text message as stated in the facts charged of this case, and sent them for domestic work.

It is sent in the process of exchanging a series of contact with the victim

It argues that it is not necessary to send back the victim with refrativity without any justifiable reason.

On May 14, 2014, the following circumstances recognized by this Court comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, i.e., ① the victim puts the Defendant’s writing on the Internet DNA personnel dgals, written in the investigation agency around May 14, 201 to the effect that the Defendant’s writing on the Internet dgals, “n only,” would be an expression that the Defendant continued to bring the comments on the comments.