logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노782
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). The Defendant’s appeal ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “a photograph of the Kakao Kakao Stockholm conversation with a company specializing in genetic test for genetic test of friendlyness,” and the crime of violation of Article 74(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network only and Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network No. 3rd 6 through 7 acts is an essential element for repeating certain acts of creating other person’s apprehension by using information and communications network. In addition, in order to determine that a series of uneasiness creation acts using information and communications networks constitute such acts, the act of creating a series of concurrent crimes should be evaluated as constituting a series of acts of crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37581, Apr. 28, 2008).

shall be corrected by correction).

arrow