A. Some of the notices written in the facts charged of this case are not prepared by the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant merely puts comments on his Twitter bulletin board, and thus cannot be deemed as having given notice of harm and injury to the victim. Among them, the Defendant’s notice of harm and injury to the victim cannot be deemed as a notice of harm and injury to the extent that it may be deemed that the content could have occurred because of the following: 15,80, 88, 89, 92, 93, 160, 161, 235, 236, 237, 237, 239, 240, 245, and 256 notice is merely a threat of harm and injury to the victim. The Defendant merely expressed a remote appraisal and did not intend to give notice of harm to the victim.

Therefore, the crime of intimidation is not established.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, each notice written in the facts charged in this case is sufficiently recognized and posted by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) According to the above evidence, the defendant, a Internet social network service provider, posted a notice on the bulletin board of the defendant's Twitter account, in a manner that registers the notice on the facts charged. Considering that Twitter posts are accessible easily by the general public due to their nature, and their contents can be confirmed, and that the victim, a well-known person, searches his/her name on the Internet without any specific restriction, may sufficiently evaluate the posting of a Twitter notice, such as the defendant's facts charged, as described above, as a "Notice" of harm and injury to the victim.

(iii)in the crime of intimidation means intimidation;