logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.09.22 2016노1249
성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(통신매체이용음란)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in light of the fact that the defendant did not write a letter on the victim's website as stated in the judgment below, and even if not, he did not do so, the defendant is the primary offender, felling the mother, and is living faithfully while carrying out real estate brokerage business in the future, etc., the punishment (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable (the illegal point of sentencing).

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the R's cell phone number (F) for each article posted on the victim's website as stated in the facts constituting the original judgment, and the forms and contents of such article are very similar, and the above article appears to have been prepared by the same person, ② the crime under paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below was committed through the HP bank computer in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Ap: M: address). As a result of verifying the user's information of the above computer, the mother of the defendant was admitted to S, and ③ the above R was a representative of the business that the defendant was employed as an employee in the past, and the defendant was disified, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant posted a notice on the victim's website by using the victim's computer as described in the judgment of the court below.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Defendant appears to have caused considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation due to each of the crimes set forth in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing. Furthermore, the Defendant published a letter of intimidation on the victim’s website as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below. As such, each of the crimes of this case is committed.

arrow