A. Compared to mistake 1) The Defendant: (a) expressed in the text message sent to the victim on July 10, 2012 that he did not have any intention to receive money, the Defendant merely sent text messages from the beginning as stated in the facts charged in which he received a genuine apology, and did not have any intention to receive money. (b) As to defamation, the Defendant did not have any speech that would impair the honor of the victim as described in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence of the court below, the defendant demanded the victim to send text messages more than 73 times repeatedly, and the six times’ amount was specified as KRW 20,00,000 among which the defendant demanded money from the victim as well as the victim. In addition to the frequency and contents of text messages, it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant simply sent text messages to the victim with the intent of sending text messages and receiving money from the victim, not to receive money from the victim. Thus, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is justified, on defamation, since it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant merely sent text messages to the victim with the intent of sending text messages and receiving money from the victim, not to receive money from the victim. 2) According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, according to the evidence duly examined by the court below such as the witness D's statement and police statement, part of the witness G's legal statement and confirmation document prepared by G, the court below's conviction of this part of the facts charged can be sufficiently acknowledged.