Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

No one shall distribute information with a content that arouses fear or apprehensions by reaching another person repeatedly in the form of code, text, sound, image, or picture.

Nevertheless, on August 17, 2017, the Defendant 2 hedging the victim B who had met with introduction hosting from the ordinary land on August 17, 2017

In doing so, he/she sent C text messages using his/her Handphones to the victim’s Handphones with the phrase “scambling multiple, locking off, and body scam.” The phrase “from around that time to September 4, 2017,” which arouses fear or apprehensions in total 12 times from that time to September 4, 2017, such as the written statement in the list of crimes in the attached Form No. 3, the indictment is written as “ August 27, 2017.08:56,” but the indictment is corrected as “on August 28, 2017,” on the ground that it appears as “on August 28, 2017,” the summary of evidence is corrected as “on August 28, 2017.” (see, e.g., the summary of evidence evidence No. 555).

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Application of each currency content, each C content, and each text message content to statutes;

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 (Generally, Selection of Fines) of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. for Criminal Facts and Punishment and the Protection, etc. of Information;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order Act asserted that, in light of the circumstances in which the defendant hedgings with the victim, the defendant could not send the victim a text message as stated in the annexed crime list as stated in the judgment of the defendant, and that the defendant's responsibility should be avoided since there was no possibility of expectation for the defendant's lawful act.

It is to judge whether there is a possibility that the defendant will expect lawful acts.