Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In relation to the second instance judgment of the court below, the defendant's repeated sending of letters to the victim is consistent with the judgment below, but this constitutes a justifiable act because there are reasons to consider the process of sending letters to the victim without the intention of intimidation.

B. The Defendant, who has not been physically and mentally weak, committed each crime according to the judgment of the court below, with mental and physical weakness due to the depression and labor-management disorder.

(c)

The punishment of each of the judgments of the court below which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, this Court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases against the lower judgment. Each of the lower judgment against the Defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be imposed within the term of punishment, which increased concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

On the other hand, even if there are grounds for ex officio reversal, we examine the legal principles of the judgment of the court below and the argument of mental and physical weakness is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion that there was no criminal intent, the defendant sent the text message 45 times as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the victim stated that the defendant was unable to see whether the defendant would have been hacker due to the repeated text as above, and the defendant also stated that the victim who received the text message was hacker. In full view of these facts, it can be acknowledged that the defendant sent the text message as above, recognizing that the defendant had repeatedly sent it to the victim that caused fear or apprehension.