All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the details and frequency of sending letters by the Defendant, and the relation between the other party, it cannot be deemed that the letters sent by the Defendant may cause fear or apprehension of the other party.

B. As to the lower judgment, each sentence of the lower judgment (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 2 million, the second instance judgment: the fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A. The Defendant filed each appeal against the lower judgment, and the lower court decided to jointly deliberate on each of the above appeals cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment guilty is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the lower judgment cannot be maintained any more.

B. In addition, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the previous Nos. 2, 5, 8 No. 1, 3, 10, and 11, 2, 3, 10, and 11, and 3, 4, 5, 12, and 6, 9, existing Nos. 9, 6, 4, and 13, and 10, from among the facts charged against the judgment of the court below as to the judgment of the court below as to the crime No. 2, the previous No. 2, 3, 10, 11, 1, 3, and 1, some of the existing No. 7, including some of the previous No. 7, 5, and 5, the previous No. 12, 12, and 6, 8, the previous No. 9, and 13, were changed to the previous No. 10, which was subject to the judgment by this court

(c)

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination on the following facts: (i) from July 21, 2014 to December 8, 2014, the Defendant made an open session against the victim.