If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

No one shall allow any person to repeatedly reach another person in the form of code, words, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

1. On January 31, 2012, the Defendant, in violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., against the victim C, sent text messages to the victim with the content that “Dwest is different from Down-gun. It was always a king which was rush at all times in the front of the king,” and sent text messages to the victim repeatedly, such as the statement in the list of crimes (1) in the attached Form, from around 12 to October 10:52, 2012, which led to fear or uneasiness, on the part of the victim C and his/her own.

2. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant sent text messages to the victim E, who was aware of the above C and his reputation around May 15, 2012 on the same grounds as the preceding paragraph, to the victim E, who was aware of the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, (i) and (ii) and (iii) the Defendant sent text messages to the victim E, “I am am fat. I am am fat. I am know that I am am F in writing. I am am,” and (iv) from around that time until July 22:54, 2012, sent text messages that cause fear

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning C;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on details of SP transmission;

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant’s parent F is the case.