The judgment below

The guilty part and the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfairly unfair) supports the Defendant’s mother at the risk of suffering from a wound’s death.

Considering the fact that the court below's punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering the fact that the defendant did not have any mental or physical suffering and that the victim does not want to be punished.

B. The Defendant expressed the appraisal of the detained for the victim, thereby causing fear or apprehensions to the victim. (In regard to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.)

Dob. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the facts charged subsequent to the summary of this part of the facts charged, Paragraph 2 of the same Article is the same.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view the Defendant’s words causing fear or apprehension to the victim repeatedly, on the ground that the Defendant merely deemed that the Defendant did not take the subject of appraisal in the process of emphasizing the victim’s wife by telephone and did not take the subject of appraisal, and that the victim was frightening, insulting, or booming the victim. However, the lower court rendered a judgment on this part of the facts charged pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. or “incompetence” are normative elements necessary to make an evaluation and emotional judgment. Priorly, “incompetence” is deemed to be “incompeting and uncompetence”; and “incompetence” to be “competenceing and being frightening without being frighten” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9581, Dec. 24, 2008). Therefore, the Defendant’s series of acts.