The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios or mistake of facts) of the defendant's series of acts shall be deemed to constitute acts which repeatedly cause fears or apprehensions to reach the other party.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violation of Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. is an essential element to repeat certain acts of creating other people's apprehensions through an information and communications network as stipulated under the above provision under the elements of the crime. In addition, in light of the legislative intent of the above provision, in order to constitute a series of acts of creating anxietys using the above information and communications network, it must be deemed that each act can be evaluated as a series of repeated acts because it is closely related with the time and place, the similarity of methods, the similarity of opportunities, the continuation of criminal intent, etc. among the acts. If a series of acts of creating fears through the above cannot be evaluated as such, the crime of intimidation or an act of creating apprehensions under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act can not be punished as a crime of violating the above Act even if the punishment is imposed separately for a separate crime, such as intimidation or an act of creating apprehensions under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

(2) The Defendant sent text messages (two times from July 201, 2014, one time from March 201, 2016, one time from June 201), and e-mail (one time from June 201, 2016, two times from July 201, 2008, and two times from August 21, 2016, etc.) as indicated in the facts charged in the lower judgment. However, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant sent text messages (two times from July 2014, 2014, one time from June 2016, and two times from August 201, 206) as indicated in the facts charged. However, it is difficult to view that the time is close to each other between the Defendant and the Defendant on July 2014, 2016 (three times), and on August 20, 2016 (one time).