9. Until December 17, 198, the Defendant sent a text messages that arouses fears and apprehensions to the victim six times. The instant facts charged sent the Defendant’s text messages to the same effect on 123 occasions from October 12, 2013 to February 15, 2014. The interval between time reaches one month and one month, and the Defendant’s amount of text messages sent from the instant facts charged is considerably larger than that of the criminal facts, and thus, all of each act cannot be assessed as a series of acts.

In addition, when the interval between the crimes listed in paragraph (3) of the list of crimes in the facts charged of this case and the crimes listed in paragraph (4) comes to be four months, and the two crimes are cut off between them, the crimes listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the list of crimes in the facts charged of this case and the crimes listed in paragraphs (4) through (123 of the list of crimes in the list of crimes in this case constitute a blanket

In light of the above circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the universal offense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below found the facts charged in this case and the final judgment as an inclusive crime.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the grounds for appeal, the Defendant, using his/her mobile phone at a place where it is difficult to know 06:32 on June 28, 2013, refers to the victim’s mobile phone “I see. I am going to see. I am to see. I am to see. I am to am dead for three (3) days after am to am to am and am dead. I am to come to am dead. I am to go to am dead and come to am dead until after am dead. I am to go to the victim repeatedly from around that time to September 18, 2013.”