The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of taking sexual assault treatment courses, 120 hours of community service) of the lower judgment is too unfunied.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio prosecutor, this paper ex officio examines the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

A. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Act”) punishs “a person who repeatedly sends words causing fear or apprehensions to another person through an information and communications network.” The term “comfort” or “comfort” under the said provision is a normative element required to make an evaluation and emotional judgment, and the term “comfort fear” in advance is deemed to read “a person who makes a well-ffort without being ffort” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9581, Dec. 24, 2008).

A) Of the facts charged in this case, parts 8 through 12, 23, 24 of the indictments Nos. 8 through 12, 23, and 24 of the indictments cannot be readily concluded by means of letters causing fears and apprehensions merely with the shape of hospital photographs and people. 2) The contents of the relevant indictments cannot be seen as causing fears or apprehensions solely on the basis of several first letters of the relevant crimes list.

41, 44, 47, 53, 55, 56, 60, 62 through 69, 79, and 82 through 97 of the same list of crimes, such as the contents that the defendant is informed of the status of the victim or requests the victim to contact with the victim, and that the defendant is waiting for contact with the victim.