The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts stated in paragraph (1) and (2) of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not send F and G letters or Kakao Stockholm messages, and as to the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not recognize that the content of the Kakao Stockholm was false, even if the Defendant was false, and the Defendant did not recognize that the content was false. As to the criminal facts set forth in paragraph (3) of the judgment below, the Defendant’s text message sent by the Defendant created fear or apprehension to the victim C solely on the basis of the message sent by the Defendant.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before making ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case as stated in the following facts charged at the trial at the trial of the Party, and as a result, it was changed by a party member who permitted the change, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

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

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that the defendant sent F and G text messages or Kakao Stockholm messages, as stated in the facts charged, in light of (i) judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts (based on the facts charged as revised in the trial): (ii) judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts (based on the facts charged as revised in the trial): F and G.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Sheb. 2: The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below that she did not indicate false facts or did not recognize that she was false is in the first instance.