A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Violation of the Act on the Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Violation of the Information and Communications Network Act”) does not simply punish all expressions that cause inconvenience to the addressee or interfere with his mind.

The defendant did not have any intention to arouse fear or apprehensions, and the defendant's act does not constitute a case where the defendant's act has reached repeatedly the words causing apprehensions.

In addition, the letter sent by one defendant is all printed, and it is not 261 times but 236 times, unlike the writing of a crime list.

It is "a arrival" that leads to a situation in which the recipient can be perceived by transmitting it to the receiver, and the victim's unspawn cannot cause uneasiness by delivering the text message to the victim.

Therefore, the defendant does not constitute an offense under Article 74 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Information and Communications Network Act.

2) In light of the record on August 1, 2017, the victim did not clearly express his/her explicit intent to contact the defendant, i.e., a request that the victim would not contact the defendant, and even if he/she did son, the defendant was aware of his/her sonial.

In addition, the defendant sent letters to the victim, and there is no circumstance that the victim demands an interview or a teaching system.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not constitute an offense under Article 3 (1) 41 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the court below found the defendant guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We first examine the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and first examine the violation of the Information and Communications Network Act.

The court below is legitimate.