1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3.Provided, That the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant is unaware of a factual misunderstanding (a threat through the transmission of text messages) that he could transmit the text message of the Maogle, there was no fact that the Defendant sent the text message as indicated in the lower court’s criminal facts No. 1-B to threaten the victim.

B. The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable even if all of the facts charged in the instant case is found guilty.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without any reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant sent the victim’s text message using the Defendant’s mobile phone on September 4, 2014, stating that “I will send the victim’s photo without delivery to his/her father and put it on the Internet” to the victim’s cell phone, as indicated in Article 1-b of the facts constituting the lower judgment. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) On September 4, 2014, the victim received the above text message from the Defendant from an investigative agency.

(2) The Defendant made a clear statement at the police station to the effect that he sent the above text message to the victim (No. 17th page of the evidence record). The Defendant made a statement that the Defendant sent the victim the above text message (No. 1st page of the evidence record). The Prosecutor also made a statement that the Defendant sent the victim such text message (No. 57th page of the evidence record), and the lower court also made a statement to the same effect.

The above statements by Defendant Appellant are consistent with the victim’s statements, and there is no other circumstance to suspect the credibility of the Defendant Appellant’s above confessions and the victim’s statements.

B. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant, ex officio (the part concerning the crime of fire prevention of existing buildings) 1), is Daegu.