beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.29 2018고정277

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In around 2015, the Defendant worked as security guards at the victim C (n, 39 years old) company, and became aware of the first victim, and requested the victim to provide the Messeno Stockholm, etc. even though the victim explicitly expressed his/her intention of refusal, despite the fact that the victim would be good for the victim around B, 2015.

Since then, as the victim prevented the contact with the mobile phone, the defendant would like to exchange the victim with the victim by using the Internet Facebook at around 14:16 on February 23, 2016.

“The sending of the message and the victim’s release of the contact with the mobile phone are the same year.

9. On 21:15, around 13.21:15, the victim using the cell phone Kakao Stockholm (hereinafter “C”).

from the time of sending the message “,” to February 16, 2018, the message sent 27 times, as described in the Schedule of Offenses, including from the time of sending the message.

In addition, the victim made the victim feel fear and uneasiness that the defendant salking himself.

Accordingly, the Defendant had the other party repeatedly reach the language that arouses fear or apprehension through information and communications network.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to C;

1. Application of the statutes governing the content of the Kakao Stockholm messages in the instant case involving Switzerland;

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc., concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, sent the victim a message that repeatedly arouses fear or apprehension, despite the victim’s expression of explicit rejection.

In this Court, the Defendant was merely a victim and a victim’s spawn.