obscenity)Violation of the Revised Telecommunications Business Act

2. 7;

No person shall display a false phone number of a caller, etc. while making phone calls for the purpose of making financial profits by deceiving other persons or of harming them by verbal abuse, threats, harassment, etc.

The defendants were friendly family members, the victim Kim ○ (n, 28 years old), and the defendant A was dead with his father-gu.

On November 6, 2014, from around 03:53 to 03:56, the Defendants held the victim’s mobile phone by limiting the phone number display using the Defendant A’s mobile phone, and then Defendant A came up with the victim’s cell phone amper, i.e., hyp, hyp, hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? hyp? the Defendant B said, “hyp?h?h?h?h?h?h?h?h?h?h?

As a result, the Defendants conspired to make phone calls for the purpose of causing harm to verbal abuse, harassment, etc., and falsely displayed the caller's phone number.

2. Determination

Article 84-2 (1) of the Telecommunications Business Act provides that "no person shall use a false phone number of a caller while making a phone call (including text messages; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) for the purpose of making property profits by deceiving another person or for harming them by verbal abuse, threats, harassment, etc.", and the prosecutor claims that the Defendants' act was in violation of the aforementioned provision.

However, considering the literal meaning of the text, it is difficult to view that the caller’s expression of the above provision refers to the change of the phone number to a different telephone number from its own phone number, and that the restriction of the call number is merely merely an expression of the phone number, but it is difficult to regard the change of the phone number or a false indication. In other words, even if the defendants restricted the call number display to the victim by verbal abuse or harassment, punishment for violation of Article 84-2(1) of the Telecommunications Business Act is beyond the limit of the principle of no punishment without law. Thus, the prosecutor’s argument about the application of the law is not acceptable (the Supreme Court Order 2012Do1296 dated November 30, 2012, which was submitted by the prosecutor, did not make a substantive decision, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a reference case in this case.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, each of the defendants is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.