logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.09 2018노1891
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine despite the fact that the Defendant had made a phone call or sent a message to the victim as stated in the list of offenses listed in the attached Table in the lower judgment, but did not cause fear or apprehension to the victim. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.”) on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles punishs “a person who repeatedly sends words, etc. causing fears or apprehensions to other parties through an information and communications network,” and the fear in advance is “comprehing and uneasible words,” and uneasiness is “a sense, uneasible, uneasible.”

Whether the text, etc. causing fear or apprehensions repeatedly reached the other party should not be determined on the basis of the content of the sent text message simply, but rather be determined on the basis of comprehensive consideration of the developments leading up to sending such text message, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the situation in which the Defendant was faced by the victim before and after sending the text message.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, as shown in the list of crimes listed in the attached Table in the judgment below, the defendant called the victim 96 times from September 29, 2016 to January 25, 2017, using public telephone, workplace Internet telephone, friendly cell phone, etc., and from May 3, 2017 to May 3, 2017.

7. Until March 152, 152 times, i.e., “I ambagy” or “I ambagy as I ambag.”

“Negr., Negr, Negr. B, Negr., Negr.

arrow