[1] Requirements for creating unstables using information and communications networks to constitute a violation of Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

[2] In a case where the Defendant was prosecuted for repeatedly reaching letters causing fears or apprehensions by smelling text messages containing abusive language, etc. on seven occasions at around three months via a mobile phone, the case holding that the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and Information Protection, etc. was erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous determination of facts

[1] Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. impose punishment on “the person who repeatedly sends words causing fears or apprehensions to other parties through information and communications networks.” Whether or not the words causing fears or apprehensions reached other parties repeatedly should not be determined on the basis of simply the content of the text messages sent, but rather should be determined by considering the developments leading up to sending such text messages, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, and the situation at which the victim was faced before and after sending text messages. In addition, in light of the legislative intent of the above provision, the crime requires the repetition of certain acts creating fears, etc. of other parties by using information and communications networks as stipulated under the above provision as a requisite for constituting a series of acts creating fears by using information and communications networks, separate from the legislative intent of the above provision, where each act constitutes a series of acts causing fears, such as the close relation to each act at issue, similarity of methods, and continuous criminal opportunities, it can not be evaluated as a series of acts and punishment.

[2] In a case where the defendant was indicted for having repeatedly delivered words causing fear or apprehensions by exposing text messages to Gap, a vice-chairperson of the management body of the above commercial center, on the ground that Gap, while operating a commercial building in his/her position, was investigated by an investigation agency on his/her own, on the ground that he/she was indicted for more than seven months, on the ground that Gap, a vice-chairperson of the management body of the above commercial center, was exposed to an investigation agency, the case held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to facts constituting a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection or Information Protection, etc., or by misapprehending the legal principles, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

[1] Articles 44-7(1)3 and 74(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. / [2] Articles 44-7(1)3 and 74(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4351 Decided August 21, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1322), Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10506 Decided January 15, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11595 Decided April 23, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 792)

Defendant

Defendant

Kim Kim

Law Firm Maritime Rool, Attorney Lee Dun-hwan

Suwon District Court Decision 2010DaMa1665 decided September 17, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

Although the Defendant sent text messages to the victim non-indicted 1 as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, it is merely a camping or emotional bath, and it does not constitute a content that arouses fear or apprehension for the victim. In addition, even if the text messages, which stated in the judgment of the court below, “it must not be installed only when the width is?” falls under the text that arouses fear or apprehension for the victim, it is merely one time, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant repeatedly reached the victim. Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant was sufficiently divided on the ground that, while operating a commercial building in his/her position at the ○○○○○○ Sports Center located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon (hereinafter “instant sports center”), the Defendant filed a complaint with an investigative agency against the Defendant and received an investigation.

1) On June 3, 2009, around 19:03, the victim’s cell phone number (number 1 omitted) sent the word “news” with the word “news”; and

2) On June 30, 2009, around 17:43, the victim sent the victim’s mobile phone with the word “Non-Indicted 1 weather, Non-Indicted 1 weather, Non-Indicted 2 with death or injury? I do not sell? It has been well written with inducements.”

3) On August 27, 2009, around 00:46, the victim sent the victim’s cell phone with the word “I and I must see only that I and I n kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn only

4) On August 29, 2009, around 16:25, the victim’s cell phone sent the victim’s mobile phone with the word “assimilation is likely to result in the death of e-mail,” and the word “assimilation is likely to result in the death of e-mail.”

5) At around 20:53 on September 14, 2009, sent the victim’s cellular phone with the word “A-- and kept knives shall live equally and promptly,” and “I shall do so;

6) On September 14, 2009, around 21:10, the victim sent the victim’s cell phone with the word “brupted brush brush. brushes.”

7) On September 14, 2009, around 21:38, the victim’s cell phone sent the victim’s mobile phone with the word “I mar where I am va in front of South, I am sin. I am sat. I am satch. I am satch.”

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

B. The judgment of the court below

As to this, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. Judgment of the court below

Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. shall be punished “a person who repeatedly arrives at another person through an information and communications network.” Whether a person repeatedly leads to fear or apprehensions, etc., not only based on the content of the text message sent but also on the basis of the circumstances leading up to sending such text message, relationship between the defendant and the victim, situation at which the victim was faced before and after sending text message, etc. In addition, in light of the legislative intent of the above provision, it is necessary to repeat certain acts of creating anxiety of the other party by using an information and communications network as stipulated under the above provision. Besides, in order to constitute such act, the act of creating a series of apprehensions by using the above information and communications network constitutes such act, such as the distance and place of each act, similarity of methods, and the same opportunity, etc., the act of causing fears or apprehensions cannot be evaluated as a series of offenses under the Act and its combined punishment cannot be assessed as 20.

이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 또는 사정들, 즉 ① 피해자는 2002년경부터 2007년경까지 이 사건 스포츠센터의 상가 번영회 부회장으로 활동하다가 2007년 말경 이 사건 스포츠센터에 상가 관리단이 구성됨에 따라 피고인이 회장으로, 피해자가 부회장으로 각 활동하게 된 점[2008. 9. 25.경 피고인이 피해자에게 상가 관리단의 회장으로서의 권한을 위임하였다(증거기록 제119면)], ② 피해자는 2009년경, 피고인이 상가 관리단의 결의 없이 임의로 이 사건 스포츠센터 3층에 위치한 휘트니스 클럽의 미납 관리비 합계 약 2억 2,200만 원을 7,000만 원으로 탕감하여 줌으로써 상가 관리단 회원들에게 손해를 입혔을 뿐만 아니라 상가 관리단이 관리하는 주차장 및 컨테이너 3개의 임대료 입출금 내역을 상가 관리단 회원들에게 보고하지 않음으로써 그 의무를 해태하였고, 피고인이 소유하고 있는 점포의 관리비를 2개월 이상 연체함으로써 상가 관리단의 대표자 자격을 상실하였다는 등으로 주장하면서 이 사건 스포츠센터의 점포소유자나 임차인들을 상대로 피고인의 상가 관리단 대표자로서의 자격을 문제삼으면서 본격적으로 피고인과 피해자 사이에 다툼이 시작된 점, ③ 그 후 피고인이 피해자를 업무방해, 명예훼손, 업무상횡령으로 고소하였고(증거기록 제80면, 피해자는 명예훼손, 업무상횡령 부분에 대하여는 증거불충분으로 인한 혐의없음 처분을 받았고, 업무방해 부분에 대하여는 약식기소되었다), 2009. 6. 3. 19:03경 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제1항과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보낸 점, ④ 피해자가 2009. 6. 29.경 위 ②항과 같은 내용이 기재되어 있는 유인물을 작성하여 이를 이 사건 스포츠센터의 점포소유자나 임차인들에게 배포하자(증거기록 제120면), 그 다음날인 2009. 6. 30. 17:43경 피고인이 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제2항과 같이 “ 공소외 1씨, 치사한 짓 그만하지 그래? 쪽～ 팔리지 않니? 유인물 잘 썼더라.”라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보낸 점, ⑤ 피해자는 이 사건 스포츠센터 210호 점포의 소유자인 공소외 2와 함께 2009. 7. 6.경 피고인을 상대로 인천지방법원 2009카합1736호 로 대표자(회장)직무집행정지가처분 신청을 하였고, 2009. 8. 1.경 인천지방법원 2009가합13237호 로 피고인 및 ○○○○ 관리단을 상대로 관리단대표자회장선임결의부존재확인의 소를 제기하였으며, 2009. 8.경 인천연수경찰서에 피고인을 직무유기 및 배임으로 고소한 점(증거기록 제8, 21-49, 81-84, 102면), ⑥ 이에 피고인은 2009. 8. 27. 00:46경 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제3항과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈고, 이에 대하여 피해자가 2009. 8. 29. 15:26경 및 같은 날 16:11경 2회에 걸쳐 피고인의 휴대전화( 전화번호 2 생략)로 “너는 어미, 애비도 없냐”라는 취지의 문자메시지를 보냈으며, 다시 피고인이 같은 날 16:25경 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제4항과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보내자 피해자가 그 직후인 같은 날 16:28경 피고인의 휴대전화로 문자메시지를 보냄으로써 피고인과 피해자가 서로 문자메시지를 주고받게 된 점(공판기록 제36, 50면), ⑦ 그 후 피고인이 2009. 9. 14. 위 대표자(회장)직무집행정지가처분 신청사건에서 피해자와 조정절차를 끝내고 다시 인천연수경찰서에서 피해자의 고소로 인한 직무유기 및 배임사건으로 조사를 받고 집으로 돌아가던 중 같은 날 20:53경 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제5항과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보내게 되었고, 이에 대하여 피해자가 같은 날 21:06경 피고인의 위 휴대전화로 문자메시지를 보내자 다시 같은 날 21:10경 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제6항과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈으며, 그 직후인 같은 날 21:16경 다시 피해자로부터 문자메시지를 받고는 같은 날 21:38경 피해자의 휴대전화로 위 공소사실 제7항과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보냄으로써 피고인과 피해자가 서로 문자메시지를 주고받은 점(공판기록 제36면, 증거기록 제54, 104-107면), ⑧ 피해자는 피고인을 위 직무유기 및 배임 이외에도 업무상배임, 횡령, 업무상횡령, 무고 등으로 여러 차례 고소하였던 점(이에 대하여 피고인은 모두 증거불충분으로 인한 혐의없음 처분을 받았다) 등을 위 법리에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 약 3개월 동안 7회에 걸쳐 피해자에게 위 공소사실과 같은 내용의 문자메시지를 보낸 것은, 피해자가 피고인의 상가 관리단 회장으로서의 직무수행에 관하여 문제제기를 하면서 피고인을 형사고소하거나 민사소송을 제기하고, 그에 대응하여 피고인도 피해자를 형사고소함에 따라 피고인과 피해자가 서로 감정싸움을 하는 과정에서 자신의 감정을 주체하지 못하고 욕설 등이 담긴 문자메시지를 보낸 것으로 보일 뿐이고, 검사가 제출한 증거만으로는 피고인이 피해자의 휴대전화에 보낸 문자메시지가 공포심이나 불안감을 유발하는 문언에 해당한다거나 피고인이 공포심이나 불안감을 유발하는 문언을 피해자에게 반복적으로 도달하게 하였다고 인정하기 어려우며, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, the court below should have pronounced innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is rendered through pleading.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is the same as that of the above 2. A. (a) and this constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as seen in the above 2.c. (c) and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is to be

Judges Lee Ji-song (Presiding Judge)