A. The text messages sent by the Defendant to the victim by misunderstanding the legal doctrine (a threat) is merely merely a temporary display of appraisal by the Defendant, and does not cause fears to the victim, in a situation where the Defendant and the victim continue to engage in defamation or interference with his/her duties, such as where the Defendant and the victim are involved in a divorce lawsuit.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the legal principles’ relationship between the Defendant and the victim recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the content of the textbook of this case, and the circumstance in which the Defendant sent the victim the textbook of this case, etc., the Defendant’s act of sending the textbook of this case as stated in the facts charged of this case notified the victim of harm sufficient to cause fear, and it is recognized that the Defendant was aware of the harm and injury caused to the victim. The evidence submitted by the Defendant does not interfere with the above recognition, and there is no evidence to reverse it.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the contents of the instant crime, the Defendant’s past history of punishment, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence, circumstances after the crime, relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and sentencing guidelines as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is unreasonable.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.