The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle) duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant sent words causing fear or apprehension to the victim is sufficiently recognized.

2. Determination A. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. punish the acts of repeatedly reaching other parties any codes, text, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Here, whether the phrase “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly sending words causing fear or apprehensions” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the content and method of expression sent by the Defendant to the other party and the method of expression, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the circumstance of sending the words, the frequency of sending the words, circumstances before and after, and the other party’s situation (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7761, Dec. 12, 2013). (b) Following the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court were the following circumstances. The circumstance in which the Defendant sent the words as stated in the facts charged was the one of the nursing private parties and the hospital chief, and the fact that the Defendant was sent during the investigation, and the overall content of the text message would be the victim before and after unilaterally emphasizing the fact that the victim abused himself/herself, and whether the victim expressed his/her intent to legally appoint an attorney on the case in which the accused accused the Defendant was accused and that there was no actual benefit of the victim.