logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.10 2017노3452
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Letters sent by the Defendant by mistake of fact cannot be deemed as causing fear or apprehension.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was prosecuted for the assault case with the victim on February 9, 2017, and intimidation case against the victim on February 24, 2017, and the defendant started to send the victim’s words as in the facts charged in this case from the date when the intimidation case occurred, as in the facts charged in this case. The above assault and intimidation case can be acknowledged that all of the victims work at the safe point where the victim work. Under such circumstances, repeated transmission of the statement to the victim that the defendant would go at the safe point where the victim’s desire to take care of the warning point is found to be sufficient act to arouse fear that the defendant might be punished, and that fighting might be punished.

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the victim did not feel fear or apprehension on the ground that the victim sent letters in response to the Defendant’s act, the Defendant sent a large number of letters in a way that he sent out am short from 2:37 p.m. to 9:4 p.m. on February 24, 2017, the Defendant sent am shortly by sending am short from 2:37 p.m. to 47 p.m.

In fact, however, the victim was actually indicted for about 10:0 p.m. (at least 10:46 p.m., but only that part was prosecuted). For that reason, the victim first appeared to have "for use" and "for each other."

Although not responding to sending and responding letters, such as “Isday”, “Isday”, the Defendant continued to have “Isday Esday Esday” at 3 p.m. 55 p.m.

arrow