The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (guilty part of the lower judgment) committed a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Defendant’s text messages sent to the Victim C have a little desire, but it is not known that they are Monson, and there are many ordinary text messages, and thereby, caused fears and apprehensions to the victim by merely being sent sporadly and infly for a period of about one year.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The text message sent by the Defendant does not contain any content that may cause harm and harm to the victim’s physical harm. When considering the fact that mental injury is bound to be prescribed depending on the victim’s statement, rather than on the part of the victim’s text message received from the Defendant, rather than on the part of the victim, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act was under stressed on the part of his wife through the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the victim sustained the instant injury due to the text message sent by the Defendant for more than two months.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the lower judgment), the general rule of experience in our society, the content of text messages sent by the Defendant to C, and the relationship between the Defendant and C and the victim E, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had intent to impair the victim E through C, and the fact of divorce constitutes a factual event that may defame an individual’s reputation, and that the content of text messages sent by the Defendant to C is likely to spread.

However, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged.