The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall allow any person to repeatedly reach another person in the form of code, language, sound, image, or picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

On December 28, 2017, the Defendant sent the victim B and the money problem with the Kakao Stockholm text messages to the Defendant, who sent to the Defendant the text messages stating that “the victim” was defective and “bandon the police station” and “bandon the waste bandon”. On the same day, around 18:44, the Defendant sent the victim a text messages stating that “before the victim throw off the message in the Kakao Kakao Stockholm text with the Kakao Stockholm text message.”

On December 29, 2017, the Defendant “Apexe” in a telephone conversation with the victim B on December 29, 2017

J. Madle bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitchch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitchh, a bitch bitch.

C. The expression “Efrienda” is expressed as “frienda” and the victim and the telephone call at around 19:32 of the same day.

c scoph scoph

D. C. C. C. C. C. C. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H.

As a result, the defendant sent the victim a voice and a letter of telephone that arouses fear or apprehension four times.

However, the instant crime constitutes Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 74(2).

However, since the victim expressed his/her intention not to want punishment around March 14, 2018 after the prosecution of this case, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.