The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sending of text messages to the Defendant regarding the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (1) is merely an emotional expression of the Defendant, and its content did not reach the degree of causing uneasiness to the victim, and there was no intention to cause uneasiness to the victim.

In addition, the above crime is not established because the delivery of text messages 26 times in total with a reasonable period of four days, which is a series of non-sponsive or non-sponsive short acts.

(2) Since the Defendant and D were not in a state of divorce in the public register and were in a de facto marital relationship, the relationship between D and C falls under the name of the Defendant, and D’s identity towards the Defendant who did not open the door, is true, since D’s finding it in the Defendant’s house, and the Defendant’s words to F are true.

In addition, the F is merely the president of the E University Literature Art Academy without knowing C, and there was no possibility that the horses of the Defendant could be disseminated to many unspecified and unspecified persons.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In the event two or more defamations are established as a result of ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, and where two or more reputations are damaged, several defamations are established as per the number of victims, and where two or more honors are damaged as a single act, several defamations are crimes.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the defendant, at the same time as a single act, has damaged the reputation of the victim D and C, and since the same act constitutes several crimes, the court below erred in punishing him as a substantive concurrent act or omitted the application of the ordinary concurrent act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.