정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant was in a relationship with the party at the time when the Defendant was in a difficult position to receive the refund of the deposit from the injured party in 2012.
C He listened to the Defendant’s discharge, and expressed the Defendant’s desire to walk the phone to the victim on a voluntary basis, and there is no conspiracy between C and C that the Defendant conspired to bullying by leaving the phone between C and the victim.
In addition, the defendant did not want the victim to talk by telephone, and even if the defendant expressed the facts charged in this case, he expressed his desire to talk with the victim twice as stated in the facts charged in this case.
Even if the victim did not reach the degree of fear and apprehension in light of the circumstances before and after the occurrence.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant conspired with C to have conspired with C to call to the victim at a time eight times, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant demanded money, and that the content of the statement has reached the degree of causing fears or apprehensions to the victim.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
(1) C At the request of a defendant who has consistently relations with an investigative agency from the original trial to the original trial.