beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is the victim C and the Defendant was a person who had been a year of six months from May 2014 to October 1 of the same year.
On July 5, 2014, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the victim was attending the school simultaneously with other women, and talked that the victim was liquidateding the relationship with the victim, and for the purpose of slandering the victim, the Defendant must explain it to the spouse E, the spouse’s East F, F, F’s friendship G, H, I, etc. using his mobile phone from around November 5, 2014 to the victim’s spouse E, the victim’s spouse’s East F, F, F’s friendship G, H, I, etc. by using his mobile phone from around 23:39 on July 2014, the Defendant must be aware of the fact that the victim was attending the school at the same time as other women.
If there is no such enemy, “(C) is unable to find how they can come up at present,” and “(C) was sent to the Kakao Stockholm message sent and received as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and the victim and E were aware that it was obvious that they would enter into matrimonial engagement and marriage, and thereby, the victim’s reputation was damaged by openly informing the victim’s matrimonial engagement and the visitors.
2. Determination
(a) Gambling, which is a crime falling under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., and is not prosecuted against the will specifically manifested by the victim under paragraph (3) of the same Article.
In the crime of non-violation of one-half intention, the victim has expressed his wish not to punish or has withdrawn his wish to punish.
In order to recognize the victim’s genuine intent, it should be expressed in a way that enables the victim to express and believe the victim’s genuine intent, and such expression of intent cannot be withdrawn from the wishing to punish or expressed his wishing to punish again after the same explicitly indicated once (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.). Furthermore, the victim’s intent is voluntary.