logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.04.04 2013노1319
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's sending of text messages as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below is merely a misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant heard the victim's statement that he would file a sexual assault, and expressed his desire to do so, and it does not aim to satisfy his own sexual desire.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the defendant had an intention to satisfy his sexual desire, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the purpose of meeting the sexual desire in the crime of obscenity using communications media under Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “crime of obscenity using communications media under the Sexual Exposure Act”).

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of a fine) of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, obscene use of a telecommunications medium constitutes an objective crime established when the perpetrator has reached another person by telephone, etc. for the purpose of inducing or meeting his/her or another person’s sexual desire. As to whether the aforementioned objective was committed, the determination should be made reasonably in light of social norms by taking into account various circumstances, such as the offender’s age, occupation, and other individual factors, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and method of the crime, content and manner of the act, personal relationship with the victim, and circumstances before and after the crime.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant, even before committing the instant crime, she told the victim, who works for the Ebrate at the convenience store operated by her employer, to read “if 10 years have elapsed, to read the victim, or to see the C (victims) photographs of the Kax,” which read “the victim”.

arrow