logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2013.04.12 2013고정59
전기통신사업법위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person shall forge or falsely indicate a caller's phone number while making phone calls for the purpose of making financial profits by deceiving other persons or of harming them by verbal abuse, intimidation, sexual harassment, etc.

Nevertheless, at around 09:45 on July 14, 2012, the Defendant sent the text messages to the victim C (the 59-year old-old) who was indicated as the “0” serial number for the purpose of verbal abuse, intimidation, etc., and sent the text messages to the victim C (the 59-year old-old) with a false phone number indicating the phone number.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Article 100 subparagraph 1 of the Telecommunications Business Act and Article 84 (3) of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On July 14, 2012, around 09:45, the Defendant appears to have been hospitalized in the hospital due to stress by removing the class of the head of the Ban and conducting unfair surveillance on the Defendant, who works for the same head of the apartment guard team, as the victim of the D Apartment Self-Governing House C, within the North-gu B bath site in North-gu B B at port.

Therefore, as the defendant's mobile phone, the victim threatened the victim by transmitting the text messages "I am knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

2. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records, the victim could have withdrawn his/her intent to punish the defendant around April 5, 2013, which was after the prosecution of this case.

arrow