A. As to the insult of the facts charged in this case on November 11, 201 among the facts charged in this case, Defendant 1 did not in itself have expressed the victim’s desire as stated in this part of the facts charged. As to the insult of the Defendant on November 17, 2011 among the facts charged in this case, the Defendant merely expressed a desire as stated in this part of the facts charged, but did not wish the victim to the G who is an employee of the apartment management office. Even if the Defendant had expressed a desire for the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., which is the primary charge of the instant facts charged by the public prosecutor, in light of the fact that the Defendant continuously transmitted letters or voices to the victim and its contents, it shall be deemed that the Defendant has reached the victim repeatedly by reaching the text that arouses fear or apprehension.

Even if the facts charged above are not found guilty, since the defendant's act of transmitting letters to the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged is deemed to have caused fear, the crime of intimidation, which is the preliminary facts charged, may be found guilty. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts that acquitted all of the primary and conjunctive facts charged.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the primary facts charged.