[2] The case holding that a husband, who received text messages related to the marital relationship of denial repeatedly from a person whose identity is unknown, has caused fears or fears by threatening another person's home and threatening him/her to feel about his/her home before he/she doubtfuls about or feel decentralization

[2] The case holding that a husband who received text messages related to the marital relationship of denial repeatedly from a person whose identity is unknown and who received text messages related to the external facts, before making a suspicion or fear of the appearance of denial, threatened his/her own family and feel about about about about the escape of denial, and caused fear and fear of fear

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One hundred days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

A. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the text message sent by the Defendant to Nonindicted Party 1 on the ground that it is difficult to view it as a content that may cause fear or apprehensions to Nonindicted Party 1, on the part of the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (obscenity distribution, etc.). However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that, upon receiving text message from the person who did not disclose his identity, anyone who was in receipt of a text message on the external facts about his denial was in danger

B. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant

In light of the fact that the defendant's family style and depth are against the defendant's personality, the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Around 18:31 on March 15, 2006, the Defendant sent a mobile phone text message with the victim non-indicted 1, who was the husband of the above non-indicted 2, and sent a text message to the victim non-indicted 1, who was the husband of the above non-indicted 2, to a bitch or fried. Women are friend. Women are friend or friend. They sent a cell phone text message with the fact that there was a mixed electric relationship while they feel algorithm and show algorithm, which is known to the young male and young with dance, from that time until 21:46 of the same day, who sent the text message to the victim three times in total, and sent it to the victim repeatedly, which arouses fear or apprehension.

(2) The judgment of the court below

(A) If the Defendant’s sending of text messages to Nonindicted Party 1 three times as indicated in the annexed crime list falls under Article 65(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., it should be recognized that the instant text messages sent by the Defendant would cause fear or apprehension to Nonindicted Party 1.

(B) The phrase “competence” under the above provision refers to fear of fear and uncomfortable mind, and the phrase “competence” refers to the content of communications sent in writing from an objective point of view to the other party’s personal circumstances, and it should be understood that the content of communications refers to the degree that directly causes fears to the extent that it does not reach the other party’s personal situation.

(C) However, the above text message does not reveal any harm because it informs Nonindicted 2, the contents of which were actually, to her husband Nonindicted 1, and it does not reveal or am any harm. Since the expression is written with Nonindicted 1, it does not seem that the above text message would directly cause fear or apprehensions due to the above text message. However, it appears that Nonindicted 1, who received the above text message, feel a serious insult and disresture.

(D) Therefore, it is difficult to view the foregoing text message as a content that arouses fear and apprehension to Nonindicted 1, and thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted.

(3) Judgment of this Court

However, the judgment of the court below is not acceptable in the following respect.

(A) According to Article 65(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., “a person who repeatedly sends words, sounds, letters, images, or videos that arouse fears fear or apprehensions to another person through information and communications networks,” is punished. Preliminary fears are “huming and uneasible words,” and uneasiness is “huming and uneasible words,” and uneasiness is uneasible.

(B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant sent letters to the non-indicted 1 by manipulating the sender's name in the computer. The contents of the letters were related to the external appearance of the denial, and the name of the denial was clearly expressed in the letter, ② Non-indicted 1 made a traffic accident after receiving the above letters, and Non-indicted 1 made a statement that she was prone to the denied non-indicted 2 Doz., and the non-indicted 1 made a statement that she was prone, and the non-indicted 2 Doz. The non-indicted 1 actually made a statement that she was prone, and requested the police station to investigate the crime. In light of the above facts of recognition, in light of the above facts, the non-indicted 1, who received text messages related to the non-indicted 1, who received the crime of denial repeatedly from a person who is unable to identify, threatened his family before she was able to feel about the external appearance of the denial, and caused his family to be broken, and without being see "no."

(C) Furthermore, since the scope of the application of the above provision is excessively expanded and the communication with the addressee’s mind is likely to cause apprehensions, it is reasonable to interpret it in a limited manner. However, even if it is interpreted in a limited manner according to the above argument, it seems that the appraisal in this case goes beyond the peace of people merely because it goes against the peace of people.

(D) Therefore, the prosecutor’s appeal that the judgment of the court below which acquitted Nonindicted 1 on the ground that it is difficult to view the foregoing text message as a content that arouses fear and apprehension is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles is with merit.

B. Ex officio determination

As the facts charged are found guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (obscenity, etc.), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the charges of this case are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single punishment at the same time. In this regard, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of the prosecutor's appeal, and the conviction portion is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of ex officio reversal, without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

A. On March 1, 2006, the victim did not lend KRW 15 million to the victim's house located in Daegu-gu (Seoul-gu) Dong-dong (Seoul-dong name omitted), but the victim did not lend money to the victim that he did not have any money, thereby threatening the victim to withdraw money by threatening "if he was playing with young gue, he will be paid for it, and his husband will be known to him." However, while the victim reported to the police to the police, the victim did not have the intent to do so at the wind that the defendant did not comply with the defendant's demand, the victim did not report it to the police.

B. On the 15th day of the same month, at no more than Daegu, access to the computer, and at no more than 18:31, the victim non-indicted 1, who is the husband of the above non-indicted 2, sent text messages to the victim non-indicted 1, who is the husband of the above non-indicted 2, “it is close to the fact that the male is bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch, but women are wind or frighten. It is hard to say that there was a bitch bitch bitch, which is known as having a bitmm bitch, with a dance, and that it is hard to know that there was a young male and young with a dance.” From that time, the text messages sent to the victim three times in total by no more than 21:46 of the same day, and sent text messages to the victim repeatedly.

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 2, 1, and 3

1. The protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the police officer

1. A report on investigation (Submission of photographs of the petition);

Articles 352 and 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 65(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (each choice of imprisonment with prison labor)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Limits to Aggregate of Long-term Punishments in the above Two Crimes)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)