The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant sent text messages and voice messages creating fears and apprehensions to the Defendant first and several times, and then temporarily sent the instant text messages in response thereto, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute “absing repeatedly the words causing fears or apprehensions,” as prescribed by the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and even if so, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim, who did not repay his/her debt to the victim, from February 10, 2013, was the same year.

7. The fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine for violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. by sending text messages several times until 30. However, in light of the motive, process, means and method of the instant crime, relationship between the Defendant and the victim before and after the instant crime, and the content, method, and frequency of expression, etc., the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not conflict with social rules, inasmuch as it appears sufficient to cause fear and apprehensions to the victim due to the following: (a) the content and expression of the text messages is deemed as “mar”; or (b) whether the text messages are intercomponed or not; and (c) the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.