The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding the fact sent the victim’s instant b body pictures and text messages using the cell phone (H) in the name of the person who is “G”.

there is no direct evidence to determine the person.

There is no fact that the defendant voluntarily submitted a cell phone photograph of the victim of this case to an investigative agency, and transferred it to another storage medium.

Nevertheless, the defendant committed the crime of this case

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty has an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) The Defendant was dead from around May 2013 with the victim. Around July 2014, the Defendant taken a photograph of the victim’s body by using his cell phone (O) at his own home.

(B) The Defendant: (a) around August 2014, 2014, the victim was the Hague.

In other words, the victim shows the balmology of this case and shows it to the mother and fluor of the victim.

on October 9, 2014, the Defendant sent the instant B body pictures to the victim using the Kakao Stockholm to show the victim’s will.

Intimidation was also made.

(C) Accordingly, the victim filed a complaint under suspicion of intimidation, etc., and then withdrawn the complaint after having agreed with the Defendant. On December 29, 2014, the Defendant was subject to a non-prosecution disposition (not having the right to institute a public prosecution).

(D) Meanwhile, while having a relationship with the victim, the Defendant received the victim’s cell phone numbers from the victim, such as his/her family, relative, and professor of university accompanying the victim, and stored them in the said cell phone (O).

(E) The Defendant used the above mobile phone (O) around October 15, 2014.