(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.04.27 2016고정1668

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.04.27 2016고정1668

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant shall have only no “A” on June 7, 2014 at the site where Non-Acheon-si was located; and (b) the Victim C shall have only no “A”.

from that time to that time the message containing the phrase “including the transmission of the message”;

7. By June 7, 200, the message of text that arouses uneasiness over 21 times was repeatedly transmitted through an information and communications network to reach the victim, such as written in the list of offenses.

2. Determination

A. The victim of the facts is the victim from January 20, 2014 to the same year.

7. From 30th to 30th, the Defendant filed a complaint by repeatedly transmitting text messages that cause uneasiness through the information and communications network, thereby allowing the victim to reach the victim. However, there was an indication at the investigative agency of the uneasiness of punishment and revocation of the complaint.

In this situation, the victim later, around May 17, 2016, and the defendant again from June 7, 2014 to the same year.

7. By June 28, a written petition was submitted to an investigative agency to the effect that the victim repeatedly transmitted the text message that may cause apprehensions through the information and communications network and caused it to reach the victim. Of the above 28 text messages, the prosecutor repeatedly sent it to an investigative agency to the effect that the victim’s act of repeatedly sending 21 text messages except the text message, which was included in the complaint of the instant case where the victim expressed his intention not to punish, exists, and thus, the victim’s wish to punish the victim was deemed as valid. As such, the prosecutor prosecuted the same as the above charge.

B. According to Article 232(3) and Article 232(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a person who has withdrawn his/her wish to punish a person who has not expressed his/her wish to punish him/her in a reflective crime cannot express his/her wish again.

In addition, the crime of the above facts charged is a crime under Article 74 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., which is a crime under the same Article.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2019.08.28 2018고정178

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.27 2019고정2844

-울산지방법원 2014.11.18 2014고정1551

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.06.30 2015고정884

-수원지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노4676