A. In light of the fact that the Defendant sent the victim a text message as stated in the lower judgment, or in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim and the details and contents of the sending of the text message, it is difficult to view that the said text message would arouse fear or apprehension, or contravene social norms.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below that the victim was uneasy and uneasy caused by the text message sent by the defendant as stated in the judgment below; and (ii) the defendant, in addition to sending the text message to the victim, was waiting for the victim by finding out the victim’s house at hand, sending the victim’s door door, sending the victim’s house, and waiting for the victim, including “the time when the victim died and died,” and accessed the victim’s children as a voice message.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation against the victim for damages against the victim by asserting that “A victim’s planned and intentional act had worked for 20 years and lost his/her work place guaranteed the retirement age, and the victim was threatened by intimidation, such as the victim’s finding a job in his/her place of work would have breadth,” but the claim on that part was entirely dismissed, etc., the Defendant is guilty of the facts charged in this case.