The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any written appeal filed after the deadline).

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In addition, according to the records, the Defendant asserted a mistake of facts as to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. in the statement of grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that the Defendant’s grounds for appeal was erroneous or misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (similar act), or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and rejected the Defendant’

However, according to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance that the court below maintained, the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant sent text messages and Kakakakao Stockholm messages that cause fear or apprehensions repeatedly over 15 times, and there is no error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below, and such omission of judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed, and thus, a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant.