logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.10 2018고정429
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On October 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) placed the Victim F (28 years old; (b) online customer center (H) at the online customer center (hereinafter “W”) with the intent to satisfy his own sexual desire at around 19:30 of the facts charged; and (c) 203 dong 201 at his own house; and (d) placed the Victim F (E) at the victim’s cell phone (E) with the intent to satisfy his own sexual desire; and (c) placed the Victim “Sing the Viewing hole,” “Is the Victim,” “Is the strong,” and “Is the same year.”

As a result, the Defendant reached the victim with a view to inducing or satisfying his or another person's sexual desire, which may cause sexual humiliation or aversion using communications media.

2. Determination

A. Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes provides that “A person who sends words, sounds, letters, pictures, images, or other things that may cause a sense of sexual shame or aversion through telephone, mail, computer, or any other means of communication, with intent to arouse or satisfy his/her or another person’s sexual desire, shall be punished.”

Here, the issue of whether the Defendant or another person’s sexual desire is “for the purpose of inducing or meeting the Defendant or the victim’s sexual desire” ought to be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, motive and background of the act, means and method of the act, details and mode of the act, and the nature and extent of the other party’s character and scope (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do21389, Jun. 8, 2017). In this case, the fact that the Defendant, who is a G counselor, made the statement as indicated in the facts charged, is recognized, but, in other words, the Defendant ordered the verbal delivery on September 28, 2017 through G, without being delivered, and from October 9, 2017 to G customer Center and I customer Center by calling several times with respect to delivery.”

arrow