Whether the Belgium of a telephone, which is blick at the other party’s telephone when blicking on the telephone, constitutes “a sound” under Article 65(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (negative)

Article 65 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. that repeatedly causes fear or apprehensions to the other party through the information and communications network, is interpreted as causing fears or apprehensions to the other party by exposing the phone repeatedly, and causing fears or apprehensions to the other party to receive the phone. In addition, the Belgium of the telephone at the other party’s phone is not a sound transmitted to the other party through the information and communications network. Thus, even if the other party causes fears or apprehensions to the other party through the Belgium of repeated telephone, it cannot be deemed a violation of Article 65 (1) 3 of the same Act.

Article 65(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2004No1570 Decided October 20, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 65(1)3 of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (amended by Act No. 7142 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter "the Act") provides that a person who repeatedly sends words, sounds, letters, images, or videos that cause fears or apprehensions to other persons through information and communications networks shall be punished. If a person makes such words, sounds, images, or videos reach other persons repeatedly through information and communications networks, 'information and communications network' refers to an information and communications system that transmits or receives sounds using telecommunications facilities (tel equipment) (Article 2(1)1 of the Act). Thus, 'the fact that a person repeatedly leads to fears or apprehensions to other persons through information and communications networks' cannot be interpreted as causing fears or apprehensions to the other party through a repeated telephone transmission. Therefore, even if a person repeatedly makes a telephone call to the other party, it cannot be interpreted as a "the other party to whom a telephone has been distributed to the other party through information and communications networks."

Although the court below's decision was inappropriate in its explanation of its reason, it is just to determine the defendant not guilty on the ground that the "Belgium," which takes from the other party's telephone when making a telephone to the other party, does not fall under the " sound prescribed in the above Article", and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)