1. The summary of the facts charged (the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.) was that the Defendant invested KRW 200 million in C operated by B, and had a bad appraisal as to B, including the fact that C filed a complaint against B on July 2015.

No one shall distribute information with a content that arouses fear or apprehensions through an information and communications network to reach other persons repeatedly in the form of code, words, sound, image, or motion picture.

Nevertheless, on May 10, 2015, the Defendant sent letters to B around 07:17 on May 10, 2015.

D. The phrase “prescepted for the settlement of Mana-do,” etc. was sent to B by sending text messages that arouse uneasiness at approximately nine times, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

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. punishs any person who repeatedly sends codes, words, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Here, whether “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly causing fear and apprehension” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text sent by the Defendant to the other party and the method of expression, the sound meaning, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the background and frequency of sending the text, circumstances before and after, and the situation of the other party’

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7761, Dec. 12, 2013). Of the letters sent by the Defendant to B in this case, the term “to find it as a house with vagabonds,” “to prepare for prison conflicts,” and “competences fraud.”