logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.08.11 2019고정1713
협박등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged and the victim B (the age of 46) are married couples who are in a divorce lawsuit.

On March 14, 2018, the Defendant violated the Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection Act, etc., committed indecent act by force by force by force by force, which is a friendship, sent the victim’s cell phone (D) at a place where it is impossible to know the location of the Defendant at around 05:29 on March 15, 2016, and sent the victim’s cell phone to the victim’s mobile phone (D) with the victim’s cell phone at which the victim’s house was her father and her home was her father and her home was her father and the Defendant filed a criminal complaint with the investigative agency. In addition, the Defendant sent 34 letters as shown in the list of crimes committed by force until June 14, 2018.

As a result, the defendant repeatedly sent letters that arouse fears or apprehensions to the victim.

B. Intimidation 1) On March 26, 2016, at a place where the location cannot be known, the Defendant sent the victim’s “E, F 2 meine photographs sent out to the victim’s employees,” on the ground that the victim did not revoke the Defendant’s filing of a complaint with an investigative agency due to the crime of indecent act by compulsion. On the same day, at around 19:13, the Defendant threatened the victim by sending the victim’s words “on the one hand, who is an employee of the victim’s company”, “on the other handphone prior to the punishment of the said for the future, you cannot be known at this time.” (2) Around August 15, 2016, at a place where the location cannot be known, and at the same time during the trial due to an indecent act against the Defendant, the Defendant sent the victim’s photo to the employees of the victim’s company on the ground that the victim did not receive the phone, thereby threatening the victim.

3. On August 20, 2016, the Defendant sent to the victim the phrase “A shall be set up on the private Internet with this suppression, which is not on the one hand, for the reason that the victim was not on the one hand, for the reason that he did not receive a telephone,” and sent to the victim the word “A shall be set up on the one hand, which is not on the other.”

arrow