The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the guilty portion), the Defendant did not have an intent to threaten the victim, and the content and before and after the posting, it is difficult to view the content of the posting as the notification of harm objectively because it was merely an objection to temporary decentralization.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the judgment.

2) The punishment of a fine of KRW 500,00,000 sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant threatened the victim by smelling each of the instant text messages.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court, at the time of the instant crime, found a dispute between the Defendant and the victim regarding the payment of insurance allowances, and the victim was aware that the subject of the instant notice was the victim, and the Defendant was also a space where the victim could have joined the instant Dokdo Dok Dok Dok Dok, which included the instant notice, and the Defendant could be aware that the victim could be seen by posting the notice. In light of the entire purport of this article, there was a concrete threat of harm and injury towards the victim exceeding a simple expression of abusive or temporary decentralization, in light of the overall purport of this article.

On the ground that it is reasonable to view this part of the facts charged, the court found the Defendant guilty.

B. The above.