Of them, there is a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation).

A. Regarding the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles 1) As to the public conflict, the Defendant: (a) returned E’s mobile phones and bags; (b) changed the cost of the defective hospital; and (c) transmitted the instant portrait photographs; and (d) I, without paying the money requested by the Defendant, remitted KRW 1 million to the Defendant, when he did not pay the money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the defendant threatened I with the intention of robbery, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), since the Defendant’s transmission of the instant ultra-wave photographs to F only, in light of the relationship between F and E, it is likely that the above ultra-wave photographs or E were pregnant, it may spread to many unspecified persons or unspecified persons, this part of the facts charged constitutes guilty, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of such violation is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

3) With respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (use and photographing of cameras, etc.), the police searched and searched the Defendant at the place of residence, based on the arrest warrant issued under suspicion, such as the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (Defamation), and the search and seizure warrant for other mobile phones of the Defendant. As such, the police searched and searched the Defendant at the place of residence, based on the search and seizure warrant for the Defendant’s other mobile phones, and there is a possibility that there is a duplicate of the 51 cellphones and the 1st and the 1st and the 5nd and the 5nd of Samsung

Therefore, it is recognized that the reason for the arrest is related to the suspected facts [fence and promotion of the use of information and communications networks and violation of the Act on Information Protection], and the ex post facto warrant is given for the seizure at the arrest site.