beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The voice letter sent by the Defendant to the victim B (hereinafter “the voice letter of this case”) cannot be deemed as causing fear or apprehension, and the repetition of the act is not recognized in light of the frequency and period of fear or apprehension.
B. The punishment of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. punish the other party to repeatedly reach the other party any codes, words, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through the information and communications network.
In this context, whether the phrase that arouses fear of fear and fear constitutes “refeasible acts to reach another person repeatedly” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents and method of expression that the Defendant sent to the other party and the sound meaning, relationship between the Defendant and the other party, circumstance of sending the words, frequency of sending them, circumstances before and after, and circumstances faced by the other party
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7761 Decided December 12, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7761, Dec. 12, 2013). In full view of the following: (a) the date and time of transmitting the instant voice letters, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim before and after the date and time of transmitting the voice letters; (b) the Defendant sent the victim a voice letter; (c) the objective content of the voice letter; (d) the method and frequency of expression; and (e) the Defendant and the victim’s situation at the time, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s sending the victim’s voice letters over 12 occasions, as indicated in the instant facts charged, constitutes an act of repeatedly reaching the
Therefore, the defendant.