The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the victim, who is a lessee of mistake of facts, was in arrears, the lessor, including the Defendant, understood the circumstances of the victim. However, the victim whose lease term expires, without considering the circumstances of the lessor, such as seeking a new lessee, requests the return of the lease deposit without any conditions, and the application for the order of lease registration is filed, and thus, the victim sent text messages, etc. to the victim with an intention to promulgate or uneasiness. As such, the Defendant did not intend to promulgate the victim.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (2 million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts are normative elements necessary to make an evaluation and emotional judgment, and “comforcing” in advance refers to “comforcing and uncomforcing”, and “comforcing” refers to “comforcing and uncomforcing them” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9581, Dec. 24, 2008). Therefore, when considering a series of acts of the Defendant, if it is recognized that the Defendant’s act is emotionally evaluated beyond the degree of harming the peace and peace of the mind of the victim, it constitutes the constituent elements of the crime above.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant sent text messages with the same content as the facts charged from November 18, 2012 to March 30 of the same month to the victim 34 times.

Furthermore, the time for sending the text message and the text message.