beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the text message Nos. 3 and 4 in the annexed crime list is not sent by the Defendant, but sent by the Defendant’s wife.
In addition, although the defendant sent the victim the victim with the message Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the annexed crime list, it does not include any content that arouses fear or apprehension, but did not meet the repetition requirements.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the victim B (the 54-year old and the 54-year old and the 54-year old) who was the father's elementary school and was aware of the fact that he had been married several times, the Defendant thought that the husband and the victim were a person with no wheels, and on January 20, 2016, on the victim's cell phone around 13:20 on January 20, 2016, the Defendant disclosed to the her husband and the Canadian contents to the husband
From that time to February 4, 2016, the message sent in the same manner as written in the list of offenses, including sending the text message “,” in which all the messages were sent in the same manner as written in the list of offenses.
The text that arouses fear and apprehensions for the victim has reached repeatedly.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on each of the evidence indicated in its judgment.
(c)
1) The victim submitted a written complaint to the effect that the Defendant sent the text message to him/her several times at the G’s “H” and “H” phone number of the annexed crime table 3 and 4. In light of the fact that the content of the text message appears to have been thought and sent by the Defendant as one of his/her husband and the victim as if he/she were the father and the victim, there is doubt that the Defendant was not using the above two telephone numbers at the time.
(b) However,