Nevertheless, around May 9, 2018, the Defendant sent the victim C’s mobile phone using the Defendant’s mobile phone (B) with the word “an unsatisfying human beings who were in the front of the unsatisfying satisfying satisfying satisfying satisfying satisfys,” and repeatedly sent the Defendant’s text messages that cause unsatisfys, such as the written list of crimes, from around 18:34 on May 9, 2018 to 18:40 on the same day.

2. Determination

A. On April 2018, the Defendant filed a complaint against the complainant and the wife of the complainant. In order to find evidentiary materials for the instant case, the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was merely erroneous in the process of releasing and cutting down the text message, and did not have any intention to repeatedly send the text message creating apprehensions.

However, on October 26, 2018, the defendant's defense counsel submitted a defense counsel's written opinion stating that "the defendant's defense counsel is a letter that the defendant is unable to think of his/her memory that he/she has suffered from the complainant and is interestful."

However, on October 30, 2018, the Defendant sent a letter of de facto waterway even in the written application submitted to this Court.

Even if there is any doubt, it can not be seen as an intentional expression in the litigation.

As alleged to the purport that “the contents of the above attorney’s written opinion are clearly inconsistent with the defendant’s consistent assertion, so the contents of the defendant’s written opinion shall be arranged in accordance with the defendant’s consistent argument.

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone intended to send a text message that may cause apprehension to the Defendant.