206Ma1565(a) Business obstruction

(b) Intimidation;

(c) Violation of Information and Communications Network Promotion Act;

(obscenity, obscenity, etc.)

AA

June 8, 2006

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year. The 84 days under confinement prior to the pronouncement of a judgment shall be included in the above punishment. One cellular phone seized by the defendant shall be confiscated. In the facts charged in the instant case, intimidation shall be acquitted.

Criminal History Office

On June 8, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for damage to public goods at the Daegu District Court on January 22, 2006 and completed the enforcement of the sentence in the Daegu Prison on January 22, 2006, and on February 21, 2006, the Victim BB (n) who was informed of the Defendant at the main point of view on February 21, 2006, was under the influence of the Victim BB (n) who was aware of the fact that the Defendant was not waiting for the Defendant;

1. On March 13, 2006: around 05:10, the Defendant sent text messages to the victim BB’s mobile phone (123-456-7890) using the Defendant’s mobile phone in Daegu (123-456-7890) using the Defendant’s mobile phone; from around the same day until around 09:49 of the same day, the Defendant sent text messages over a total of 12 times, and sent text messages to the victim repeatedly inciting fear or apprehensions through the information and communications network, such as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet;

2. 같은 달 16. 13:45경 대구 장소불상지에서, 사실은 위 BBB로부터 ‘지하철을 폭파하겠 다'는 내용의 문자메시지를 받은 사실이 없음에도, 피고인의 휴대전화로 대구 동구 신천4동 소재 동대구지하철역에 전화를 하여 동대구역 지하철역 근무 6급 역무주임 ㅇㅇ ○에게 “내 휴대폰으로 문자메시지가 왔는데 123-456-7890번을 가진 사람이 지하철을 폭파하겠다는 내용이다. 나는 겁이나 신고를 못하겠고 동대구 지하철역에 이야기를 해 주는 것이니 알아서 해라”고 말하여 허위의 신고를 함으로써 대구광역시 지하철공사 사령실로 하여금 승객의 안전 도모와 폭발물설치 확인을 위하여 대구 지하철 1호선 전구간 전동차 운행을 1시간 가량 중단하게 하여 위계로써 대구지하철 공사의 전동차 운행업무를 방해하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor’s statement of BB;

1. Each police statement of 00, BB;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Communications data accompanying the contents of the message;

1. A position quo of explosives;

1. Report on investigation (record contents of the report);

1. An investigation report (whether to transmit a victim's message);

1. A criminal investigation report (verification of the content of a threatened message);

1. Investigation report (BBB mobile phone text messages shooting);

1. Criminal records;

1. Investigation reports (verification of the date of release from prison and application of statutes);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) The point of transmitting text messages: Article 65 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection;

(b) Point of interference with business: Articles 314(1) and 313(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of imprisonment;

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Code

1. Mitigation of mental illness;

Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of the number of detention days before sentencing;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Code provides that the reason for sentencing of Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Code refers to a serious issue about public safety, and that the contents of the false report should be strictly punished by such acts of violence as a result of the suspension of long time operation.

-On the other hand, it appears that the person has a mental disorder, has submitted repeated rebuttals, and has an attitude against the crime.

Parts of innocence

1. Of the facts charged of this case, intimidation is as follows. B.

A. At around 13:00 on March 16, 2006, the Defendant received text messages (name omitted) from the Defendant’s office located in Seo-gu, Daegu District Police Agency, Daegu District Police Agency 112 report center using the Defendant’s mobile phone to receive a report, stating that “The phone number of the sender was 123-456-7890, and the phone number of the sender was 123-456-7890.” Accordingly, the Defendant threatened the victim by notifying the manager of the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation to the effect that the history and facilities were destroyed and used.

B. On March 16, 2003, the Defendant called the Defendant’s cell phone to the Daegu Daegu subway Station located in Daegu Daegu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si(s) that “A person with 123-456-7890 may spread the subway.

2. Determination

A. "Intimidation" in a crime of intimidation refers to causing fears to the other party by notifying the intent to cause harm and injury, and normally it is a case where the person who has made the harm and injury informs him/herself or together with others of his/her intent to cause harm and injury. However, even in the case of notifying the harm and injury caused by a natural disaster, a scarcity or a third party's act, if the notifying person has been notified as if he/she could have caused such harm and injury, it may be a threat, and if not, it is not a "Intimidation" even if the other party actually caused fear.

B. As to the above facts charged, there is no evidence to support that the defendant's harm was caused by a third party's act, and that the defendant may depend on the occurrence of harm or injury. In addition, there is no evidence to support that the contents notified by the defendant contain surrounding circumstances that the defendant could depend on a third party's act.

A prosecutor asserts that ① the Defendant’s act does not mean that he installed explosives, ② if the Defendant’s act is not regarded as intimidation, there would be a serious gap in punishment. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the surrounding situation sufficient for evaluation as above, ② even if the result is the result, it cannot be deemed unfair as it is in accordance with the legal principles of intimidation. In addition, in relation to the above 1.B., in relation to the above 1.B., the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by obstruction of business or by fraudulent means is a matter to be resolved by the crime of obstruction of business. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

Therefore, the above facts charged do not have proof of the crime. Although we added the company's death, if it is assumed that the defendant's act shown in the above facts charged falls under "Intimidation," unlike the point of view (as the prosecutor's assertion), it constitutes "definite force, which is one of the forms of the acts committed in the crime of interference with business as seen earlier, and therefore, the crime of intimidation is not incorporated into the crime of interference with business and does not constitute a separate crime. Therefore, the facts charged in the above 1.b. are deemed not to constitute a crime.

A prosecutor asserts that the crime of intimidation is not included in the crime of interference with business in light of the attitude of practice, which is punished as substantial concurrent crimes of interference with business and damage to property when he/she damages goods at a restaurant, and the legal interests protected by the crime of interference with business are different. However, the damage of property is an act that infringes other legal interests beyond the legal interests protected by the crime of interference with business, and thus it is not an issue to be evaluated at the same location as the crime of interference with business. The legal interests protected by the crime of interference with business are not different from the legal interests protected by the legal interests protected by the crime of intimidation because it includes the freedom of individual's freedom of decision-making or freedom of decision-making (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2151) and the general opinion that the crime of assault and intimidation are absorption into some other crimes of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do2151).

D. In conclusion, the above facts charged are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing the reasons under the above Paragraph B.

Judges Park Jong-young