The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing that the Defendant, by mistake of fact, sent the same text message as that indicated in the facts charged to cell phone, although such text message was merely intended to either obtain a apology from the injured party or to make a decision on whether to withdraw the Defendant’s complaint with respect to his assault case on April 29, 2016, which occurred between the Defendant and the injured party D, and thus, the victim did not report and feel fear or feel apprehension, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of fact, Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. punish “a person who repeatedly sends words causing fear or apprehension to another party through an information and communications network,” and “incompetence” under the above provision is a normative element that requires an evaluation and emotional judgment, and “incompetence” is deemed as “incompetence and apprehension” as “incompetence,” and “incompetence and apprehension” as “incompetence without mind” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9581, Dec. 24, 2008). Therefore, if the Defendant’s series of acts are deemed as having reached the other party’s emotional sense and without having the other party reach the degree of a sense that it does not cause harm to the victim’s emotional well-being and without having the other party reach the degree of an emotional sense.

2) In light of the above legal principles, evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court.