The Defendant, who is the owner of the building, was fluent on the ground that the Defendant removed the toilets used by male customers, who were found in the beauty art room by the victim C(74, women) who were the owner of the building, without permission.

On October 14, 2016, from around 23:05 to around 11:18 of the same month from around 15, 2016, the Defendant phoneed the victim for the foregoing reasons at the Defendant’s dwelling located in Dobong-gu Seoul building and the Defendant’s dwelling located in 202, and sent the victim’s text “from the time of the low-income change and the restoration to the original state, it is difficult to do so.”

In addition, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes, the Defendant repeatedly sent the victim the horses and letters causing apprehensions through the information and communications network over 70 times.

2. Determination

A. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. impose “a person who repeatedly sends to another person any word, text, sound, image, or image that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.” Whether the Defendant repeatedly arrives to the other party should be determined by taking into account not only the content of the sent text message, but also the developments leading up to sending such text message, relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the situation in which the Defendant was faced before sending the text message (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do4351, Aug. 21, 2008; 2008Do10506, Jan. 15, 2009).

However, in full view of the following facts admitted by the record, the written message sent by the Defendant alone is presented by the prosecutor.