logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.08.28 2015노348
정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant sent each of the instant text messages in the course of protesting against the victim at the time of committing the crime indicated in the facts charged. Of the foregoing text messages, some of the instant text messages cannot be deemed as falling under the text that arouses fears or apprehensions for the victim, and the remainder text messages cannot be deemed as having reached repeatedly the text that arouses fears or apprehensions for the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which found all of the facts charged.

B. The lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case.

2. Judgment of the court below

A. Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Framework Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. are punished for repeatedly allowing other persons to reach any codes, words, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7761, Dec. 12, 2013). Moreover, the crime of violating Article 74(1)3 of the aforementioned Act requires the repetition of a certain act that creates the other party’s apprehension, etc. using an information and communications network as an essential element.

arrow