A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the victim’s statement as to Defendant A’s each attack and intimidation, there was a threat of harm and injury to constitute a crime of intimidation or intimidation.

The causal relationship between intimidation and monetary payment is also recognized in the case of the official conflict of July 1, 2012.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. Considering the content, time, frequency, etc. of text messages sent by Defendant B to the victim as to Defendant B’s violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, the above Defendant’s act constitutes a case of repeatedly sending the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s each public conflict and intimidation, the lower court, in light of the relationship with the said Defendant and the victim, and the circumstances before and after the said Defendant’s statement as stated in the facts charged, or the developments leading up to receiving money from the victim, etc., it is difficult to view that, among the facts charged in the instant case, the notice of harm and injury to the said Defendant was given to the victim beyond the permissible extent by social norms. As to Defendant A’s public conflict and intimidation on July 1, 2012, it constitutes intimidation by the said Defendant’s speech committed by the victim.

Even if there is no causal relationship between the victim's monetary payment and the intimidation, each of the facts charged was pronounced not guilty, and if the records of this case and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below are closely compared, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and even if the prosecutor's grounds for appeal are examined, there is no error of mistake of facts.