The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in this case’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s act of sending text messages to C on five occasions constitutes a text that may sufficiently arouse fear or apprehension, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the entire facts charged in the instant case on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

(a) The summary of this part of the facts charged shall not reach any other party repeatedly in the form of code, words, sound, image, or picture creating fear or apprehensions through an information and communications network;

Nevertheless, at around 17:11 on July 4, 2012, the Defendant sent a text message to the victim C’s cell phone at an insular location, stating, “10 times the year he has come so far due to inside, so he has not been repaid.” On the same day, around 17:17 on the same day, “one year has come to the last day of the year when he has come to the last day of the year when he has come to the last day.” On the same day, at around 17:52 on the same day, the Defendant sent a text message to “18:06 on the same day,” “19:43 on the same day.”

As a result, the defendant has repeatedly reached the victim with words causing fear or apprehension.

B. The lower court’s judgment determined as follows: (a) the Defendant’s text message was recognized by the records of the instant case; (b) the Defendant’s text message was 17:17 on July 4, 2012 as follows; (c) the Defendant’s text message was sent to the Plaintiff at the end of the instant year on the one hand on July 4, 2012, and was 17:11 on the other day; and (d) the Defendant’s text message was 10 times the year.