logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.04.19 2013고단665
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Facts charged;

A. On June 9, 2010, the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. against the Victim B, on the ground that the victim B, who was the Defendant’s wife, did not contact himself/herself at a place where the location is unknown, sent a text message to the Victim B using the Defendant’s mobile phone (C) for the reason that the victim B, who was the Defendant’s wife, did not contact him/her with him/her. Moreover, on August 21, 2012, the Defendant promulgated and promulgated the victim’s mobile phone fee of May 1st, 200 through the Defendant’s mobile phone (D). In addition, on the other hand, on the ground that on the other hand, on the ground that on the part of the victim B, the Defendant did not contact him/her with him/her at a place where the Defendant’s location is unknown, and the victim’s mobile phone fee of the victim was 40,000 won or less per se.

B. On January 26, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., against the victim E, sent a text message to the victim E’s cell phone (F) of the victim E, who is the father of B, using the Defendant’s cell phone (C), on the ground that the Defendant’s wife, was out of a place where the location cannot be known, and the contact with him/her was not contacted. In addition, from that time to August 21, 2012, the Defendant repeatedly sent a text message to the victim E, “I am good speech, so as to make the victim reach the victim nine times in total, such as the attached Table 2, from August 21, 2012.

C. On March 18, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. against the Victim G, on the ground that the Defendant’s cell phone (C) does not contact himself/herself by leaving a place where the Defendant’s wife is unknown.

arrow