logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.11 2015노1289
사기등
Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The wiretapping equipment prescribed by the Protection of Communications Secrets Act refers to the equipment that can be used for wiretapping, and whether the relevant equipment was actually used for wiretapping does not constitute the requisite to establish crimes under Article 17(1)4 and 10 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, because they were used for wiretappings, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Defendant B, C, D, and E’s sentence (Defendant B, C, and D: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, confiscation, and Defendant E: imprisonment for 8 months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles by the prosecutor, any person who intends to manufacture, import, sell, possess, or use wiretapping equipment, or to advertise for such purpose, shall obtain authorization from the Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning. Nevertheless, the Defendants sent such fraud gambling at each time, place, etc. of the lower judgment by attaching images of the victims’ cards using video monitors, cameras,less electrical transmission machines, etc. without authorization, and interpreted it again to inform his/her accomplices of such fact. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the Minister of Science, ICT and Future Planning to use wiretapping equipment without authorization. The Defendants were charged with the Defendants on the violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, including Defendant A and D’s total amount on five occasions on January 21, 2015 and January 22, 2015; from around 10:15 to 20:10 on May 21, 2015; and from around 20:10 on May 21, 2015:

arrow