logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.26 2019노548
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) recognizes the fact that the defendant sent a phone to the victim four times as stated in the facts charged by him/her.

However, it is difficult to see that the contents of the voice delivered in the above currency have caused fears or apprehensions, and it is difficult to say that it has been repeatedly transmitted in light of its frequency.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

1) The Defendant and the victim came to know through Internet hosting around 2010. Although the Defendant and the victim were less than once on one occasion around 2015, the Defendant and the victim did not regularly contact or exchange each other thereafter. (ii) The Defendant used 10 times in total from January 5, 2017 to October 12, 2017 the function of restricting the phone number display by using 10 times the phone number display to the victim repeatedly.

The victim received four calls from September 16, 2017 and October 12, 2017, which were not affected by the telephone for eight months.

3) On September 16, 2017, when a phone connects the victim with the victim on September 16, 2017, the Defendant did not 32 seconds until the victim discontinued the phone. On the other hand, at around 04:23 immediately after the victim cut off the phone, the Defendant sent a hidden interest without any speech of 13 seconds. Furthermore, on October 12, 2017, when the phone connects the victim with the victim at around 01:22, the Defendant sent a hidden interest through 22 seconds or 3 seconds. On the other hand, at around 01:23, the victim cut off the phone, the Defendant did not 8 seconds until the victim ended the phone. On the other hand, as seen in the above paragraph 2, for several years, the victim did not end the phone.

arrow