beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged shall not allow anyone to reach another person repeatedly in the form of code, words, sound, image, or picture creating fear or apprehensions through an information and communications network;
around 17:19 on January 30, 2012, the Defendant phoneed from the Defendant’s house to the mobile phone (E) used by the victim D at the Defendant’s house in e.g., “Woo-top flap frop flaps, chip frop flaps, a fine of KRW 2 million or a fine of KRW 2 million,” and thereafter, from that time until January 30, 2012, the Defendant reached the victim with the text that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network over 12 times in total, as indicated in the annexed crime list, from January 30, 2012.
2. On the other hand, there is a complaint, a record of recording, and a statement of statement by the police about D as major evidence corresponding to the above charged facts.
However, according to the statement under Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a recording recording may be admitted as evidence if the defendant's consent is obtained or if it is proved by the statement made by the person making the original statement on the trial date. The defendant and defense counsel did not consent to the admissibility of a recording. The defendant and defense counsel did not submit a recording recording as evidence, and it is not recognized that the recording recording recording recording recording was recorded as stated by the statement made on the trial date of D, and since it is not recognized that the recording recording recording is recorded as stated by the statement made by the person making the original statement on the trial date, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt because the requirements to recognize the authenticity
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7497, Sept. 8, 2011). Meanwhile, according to each statement in the accusation and the police protocol with respect to D, D, on the ground that the Defendant got a fine of two million won until January 31, 2012, he/she was able to walk up his/her phone and her abusive language.