logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.23 2015노2770
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court denied the judgment on the primary charges of this case.

B. As to the conjunctive charged facts of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the act of abusing verbal abuse without indicating his/her telephone number by using the transmission number display restriction service constitutes an element of a crime of violating the Telecommunications Business Act

Although the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the conjunctive charge of this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor: (a) the name of the crime was in violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; (b) the applicable provisions of Article 3(1)19 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; and (c) an application for modification of an indictment with the following facts charged while maintaining both the primary and conjunctive facts charged for the trial; and (d) the subject of the judgment was added by the court upon permission.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained due to the above reasons for ex officio destruction, but the prosecutor's assertion of omission of judgment and misapprehension of legal principles as to the main facts charged is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Decision 1 on the assertion of omission of judgment 1) The summary of the primary facts charged is that the Defendants were pro-Japanese and the victims D (the age of 28 was dead with the male-child of Defendant A).

From November 6, 2014 to 03:53 on 03:53 to 03:56, the Defendants case the Defendant’s cell phone on the victim’s cell phone by means of restricting the phone number display using Defendant A’s cell phone, and then Defendant A came up with the victim’s “I am hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp, hyp., hyp to hyp., and Defendant B hump to hyp to hyp.

(i) once more recognized, and so far as the country is given.

arrow