Nevertheless, on January 15, 2013, from 09:01 to 19:58 on January 28, 2013, the Defendant used the phone number C and D from the place to the victim E’s mobile phone (F) with the victim E’s cell phone (F), and sent a text message repeatedly over a total amount of 182 times, including sending a text message, “I want to fill the same Mamo-mity match, but I want to do so continuously, even if I want to do so, all the decisions will be followed by the decision.”

As a result, the defendant has repeatedly reached the victim with signs, doors, etc. creating fear or apprehensions.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 74(2) of the same Act. According to the written agreement, it is apparent that the victim E withdraws his/her wish to punish the Defendant on April 1, 2013, which is after the public prosecution in the instant case was instituted, and thus, the prosecution in the instant case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.