The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not send each text message to the victim F and the 10 students of D University as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the case was examined as follows: (a) at the trial of the political party, the Prosecutor visited the Internet set-up site operated by KT in the name of the Defendant at around 05:49 on June 22, 2011; (b) “after accessing the Internet set-up site operated by KT in the name of the Defendant’s model G at around 05:49 on June 22, 2011; and (c) as follows: “after accessing the off site in which the Defendant’s name can be sent in the name of the Defendant’s model G at around 05:49 on June 22, 2011; and (d) “after accessing the KT set-acom site in the name of the Defendant’s model G (O)” attached to the indictment, each of the following changes were maintained; and (c) thus, the judgment below was no longer subject to permission.

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this is examined.

B. In the first criminal trial for determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the formation of conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but can be based on indirect evidence, the indirect evidence should not be individually or separately assessed, and the indirect evidence should not be assessed individually or separately, and should be evaluated in a comprehensive manner by comprehensively assessing, closely and inconsistent arguments with each other in all respects.

The probative value of evidence is left to the free judgment of judges, but the judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction in a criminal trial is reasonable doubt.