Although an exaggerated expression was used in the process, it was merely a letter that expresses the defendant's complaint.

After that, the defendant voluntarily withdrawn the defendant's appeal against the victim, and the victim returned to the defendant's father, but by having the defendant work in a place where the body of animals, which is not the department that originally worked, disposed of the body of animals, so that the defendant's father's father can only retire from office.

Therefore, among the appraisal fighting between the defendant and the victim, it is limited to sending additional text messages containing a strong text of the defendant such as expressing complaints.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the text that arouses fears or apprehensions for the victim has reached repeatedly.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant sent text messages containing the purport of “to prevent Gwangju Metropolitan City from entrusting the operation of the D to the Defendant,” and “a person who has been working in the victim’s description silents or aids and abets a criminal act committed by his/her employees” on several occasions. However, such Defendant’s text is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act would interfere with the operation of the D by filing various civil petitions with Gwangju Metropolitan City, etc. to prevent the victim from operating D, or would cause fear or apprehension that the Defendant may be involved in a criminal case due to the occurrence between the employee working in the victim’s description and his/her father’s wife.”

In addition, the text of the defendant is 84 times over 7 days.