All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”), Defendant’s sending the victim J messages does not constitute an act of repeatedly reaching the language that arouses fear or apprehension.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles since it found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the violation of the Information and Communications Network Act against the victim B, the Defendant’s sending text messages to the victim B constitutes an act of repeatedly reaching a letter that arouses fear or apprehension.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not correspond to this and rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, and thus, erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment (which violated the Information and Communications Network Act against the victim J) and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, namely, ① demanding the Defendant to return the amount that exceeds the interest rate set forth in the Interest Limitation Act out of the amount repaid by the Defendant to the victim J, and sent the message listed in the attached Table III of the lower judgment; ② the message sent by the Defendant included the content of the Defendant’s finding the private teaching institute operated by the victim beyond the mere extent of filing a complaint against the said victim; ③ the Defendant’s message is included in the content of the Defendant’s finding the private teaching institute operated by the victim beyond the said victim; and ③ the Defendant’s message, in full view of the fact that the said victim’s actually operated by the private teaching institute,