Appellant

Suwon District Court Order 2006 and 4931, 2006 and 4926, 2006 and 4928, 2006 and 4928, 2006 and 4929, 2006 and 2006 and 4930 dated December 31, 2007

1. To revoke all the decision of the first instance;

2. An appellant shall be punished by a fine for negligence of twenty five million won;

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. On July 11, 2006, the Seoul Cze-gu filed on the ground that the appellant sent advertising information for profit to the addressee’s phone without the prior consent of each addressee, on the ground that he/she: (a) on February 11, 2006, the appellant used the response number (number 1 omitted); (b) 474 persons using the response number (number 2 omitted); (c) 535 persons using the response number (number 3 omitted); (d) 643 persons using the response number (number 4 omitted); (e) 692 persons using the response number (number 5 omitted); and (e) sent the response number (number 5 omitted); (c) on the ground that he/she sent advertising information for profit to the addressee’s phone without the consent of each addressee, Article 67(1)2 and 50(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 7917, Mar. 24, 2006) imposes an administrative fine of each 18 million won (in total).

B. Although the appellant filed an objection against each of the above dispositions, the court of first instance rendered a decision of this case where the appellant is subject to each of the administrative fines of KRW 18 million (total KRW 90 million) on December 31, 2007 after the summary judgment was rendered.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

Appellants do not have any fact of sending the brochuress, and they have lost their identification cards. Thus, the complainants obtain personal identification cards from the appellant and opened the phone in the name of the appellant, and send the brochuress. The complainants are victims due to the identity theft, which was subject to the disposition of a fine for negligence. Therefore, the disposition of the fine for negligence of this case

B. Determination

According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the addressee's telephone number subscribed to the name of the appellant without the prior consent of the addressee has been transmitted with advertising information for profit to the addressee's telephone, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that other person than the appellant has used the name of the appellant to transmit the above information.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant violation, the details and degree of the instant violation, the circumstances after the instant violation, and other circumstances revealed in the records, it is recognized that the sum of the administrative fines imposed by the court of first instance on the appellant is somewhat unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court shall be revoked, and the appellant shall be imposed KRW 5 million for each violation and KRW 25 million for total fines.

Judges’ fee (Presiding Judge)