The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) sent a Kakao Stockholm to the victim, who had sent contact to the Defendant for one week, did not respond to the Defendant’s telephone or text message; and (b) the victim took excessive criticism against the Defendant; and (c) Kaka Stockholm was merely sent a number of letters to the victim in order to receive apology from the victimized person on the part that the her mother took the desire for her mother to feel.

The text sent by the Defendant to the victim is difficult to be deemed to be a language that arouses fear and apprehensions for the victim, and there was no intention to commit a crime that leads to fear and apprehensions for the victim.

B. Even if the defendant's act of a political party repeatedly sent the victim's words that arouse fear and apprehensions, it is not unlawful since the defendant demanded an excessive criticism and desire of the victim, it is a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Articles 74 subparag. 3 and 44-7 subparag. 1 subparag. 3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. punishing the other party to repeatedly reach other party any codes, text, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Here, whether the phrase “an act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “an act of repeatedly causing fear or apprehension” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text sent by the Defendant to the other party and the method of expression, the implications of the expression, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the developments leading up to sending the text, the frequency of sending the text, circumstances before and after, and circumstances faced by the other party, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da1