The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the text message sent by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have caused fears and apprehensions to the victim, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., punish the acts of repeatedly reaching other persons any code, words, sound, image, or picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and

The issue of whether the phrase “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly causing fear and apprehensions” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents and method of expression that the Defendant sent to the other party and the sound meaning, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the background and frequency of sending the words, the circumstances before and after, and the situation of the other party’s custody

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the text message sent by the Defendant to the victim was 54 times in total, and the 44 times among them was concentrated between September 20, 2013 and September 22, 2013; ② the content of the message sent by the Defendant to the victim; ② the content of the message sent to the victim; and ② it is sufficient for the Defendant to have the victim feel fear and apprehension by demanding to meet with the victim or his/her family members, and by seeking the victim’s desire or threatening language; and thereby causing fear and apprehension, the fact that the Defendant has repeatedly sent to the victim, as recorded in the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Conclusion.