The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable for the court below to acknowledge that the message sent by the Defendant who was erroneous or psychologicalally misleading, did not have a specialist’s mental opinion or hospital’s diagnosis as to whether the victim C was suffering from uneasiness.

B. The Defendant sent text messages to the victim C and the above victim during the process of protesting against the issue of wages, which is the head of the educational institute that employs himself, which is a justifiable act that does not go against social norms, and is not an offense.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (2 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 74(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that “any person who has repeatedly sent codes, language, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension, in violation of Article 44-7(1)3, shall be punished.” Here, the term “uneasiness” is a normative element that requires an assessment of the concept of a mental and emotional element, which is called as “easible and fford without mind,” which is called “easible and fford,” which is called as “in advance.” (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9581, Dec. 24, 2008).

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of a justifiable act, the defendant raised a conflict due to the dismissal, wage, etc. of the victim C and the defendant, who is the head of the private teaching institute, as shown in the annexed list of crimes of the court below.