2. Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., punish the acts of repeatedly reaching other parties any codes, language, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Here, whether the phrase “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly causing fear or apprehension” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language sent by the Defendant to the other party and the method of expression, the implications of the expression, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the developments leading up to sending the words, the frequency of sending the words, the circumstances before and after, and the other party’s situation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do761, Dec. 12, 2013). The foregoing legal doctrine and evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court and the trial, are as follows: (i) the Defendant unilaterally sent the victim text messages at least 31 times in total for about four months; and (ii) the Defendant divided the two parts into two parts, namely, “the one who is the one who is a party,” and divided the two parts into two parts.

“The content of the text message appears to be sufficient to feel fears and apprehensions as seen in the instant case. ③ The victim with general acceptance appears to have reported the text message sent by the Defendant, and satise fears or considerable apprehensions. ④ The Defendant sent most of the text message at night or on the new wall, and ④ The instant text message was sent to the Defendant.