The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., the victim abuseds the victim first by walking the phone, and the defendant called the victim in response thereto, but did not receive the victim.

Therefore, the Defendant had no choice but to transmit the text message to the victim as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s act of transmitting the Defendant’s text message has reached the point of creating uneasiness.

B. There is no time for the defendant to commit the crime of injury to the victim.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. provides for punishing a person who repeatedly sends words, text, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network to reach another person.

Here, whether “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly causing fear or apprehension” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text sent by the Defendant to the other party and the method of expression, the implications of the expression, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the developments leading up to sending the text, the frequency of sending the text, the circumstances before and after, and the other party’s situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do4351, Aug. 21, 2008; 2013Do7761, Dec. 12, 2013). In this case, in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, health class for the instant case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant repeatedly reached the victim, as shown in the judgment of the lower court.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the judgment of the court below.