The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld an appeal ruling that fined a young man 100,000 dirhams for breaking a Snapchat account of a married woman, obtaining pictures and conversations, threatening to publish her, informing her husband if she refused to meet him, and the court rejected the appeal, obliging the appellant to plot and confiscate Security deposit.
The details of the case, due to the receipt of a threatening letter to a woman, sent by anonymous through the program «WhatsApp», telling her that he had hacked her account, and that all her photos, conversations and videos with him, and asked to meet her, and in the case of refusal will publish pictures, and send them to her husband, and took pictures of some Conversations between them and others, and sent them.
The Public Prosecution has charged the defendant with unauthorized access to the victim's Snapchat and access to her personal data.
The Abu Dhabi Misdemeanor Court, in his presence, convicted him of his conviction, punished him with a fine of 100,000 dirhams, and deported him outside the state, with the confiscation of the mobile phone used in the crime, and obliging him to pay fees. The defendant appealed the verdict. In his decision to deport, support him otherwise and oblige him to the judicial fees, he challenged him by cassation while the cassation prosecutor submitted a memorandum of opinion which ended in rejecting the appeal.
The appellant mourned the appealed judgment in the application of the law, inadequate reasoning, corruption in the inference and breach of the right of defense, for the lack of elements of the crime against him, and that the victim gave him the password to change it at her request and that he had previous knowledge with her. The new number was used, and the complainant's statements alone are not sufficient to convict him, in addition to the indictment confirmed by the complainant's waiver in the investigations of the Public Prosecution, in addition to the fact that the verdict did not achieve his defense by delegating a technical expert in electronics, which is flawed and needs to be reversed.
In its ruling, the Court noted that the appealed judgment in support of the contested judgment, for its reasons and amended, took full account of the fact of the case, its circumstances and circumstances, including all the objective and legal elements of the crime against which the appellant condemned it, and cited as evidence against him the prudent evidence derived from the victim's statements by investigations. The prosecution and police evidence that he threatened the victim, after sending her a conversation «Whatsapp» between them and another person, and what proved in the report of research and investigation that the defendant is the owner of the number from which he sent the letter, which is justified enough to carry the judgment.
The court pointed out that the trial court is not obliged to delegate an expert in what it considers to be that it does not need technical expertise when it finds in the case papers what is sufficient to form its faith. Consequently, the obituary in this regard is not appropriate, and the argument that the elements of crime and malicious accusations are not available is based on objective arguments that do not require a response to independence, as long as the reply is implicitly obtained from the evidence provided by the judgment. The entire appeal shall be unfounded and shall be rejected. The court shall reject the appeal, oblige the appellant to draw and confiscate the security deposit.