beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From December 8, 2010, the Plaintiff discovered that D, the wife, exchanged telephone conversations and text messages several times for about two months with the Defendant, and asked the Plaintiff to doubt the Plaintiff’s wife. On March 15, 201, around 21:25, the Plaintiff assaulted the Defendant at one time on the Defendant’s full-time part of the Defendant’s crypt, and the Defendant agreed on the above assault on March 11, 201.
After that, the Plaintiff sent text messages to the Defendant from June 8, 201 to August 31, 2012.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s repeated transmission of letters that may cause uneasiness (violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. by Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2013-type 9517). However, on January 28, 2014, the prosecution rendered a decision without suspicion on the ground that the instant text messages did not unilaterally transmit the Plaintiff, but rather exchanged the original Defendant’s trade name, and the content thereof did not cause fear. The time when sending letters was sent, one time around June 8, 2011, and one time on June 9, 201, and most text messages were transmitted on August 31, 2012, and it is difficult to view that repeated text messages are repeated.
(In the above decision, the judgment on the accusation against the defendant was also made. (C)
On December 22, 201, February 16, 2012, and November 1, 2012, the Defendant sent text messages to the Plaintiff on December 22 of the year, as shown in the attached Table.
On April 3, 2014, at around 12:43, the Defendant confirmed that the phone was absent from the Plaintiff, and asked the Plaintiff to pay KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff, which is set forth in the civil litigation judgment between the original Defendant during the phone call. The Defendant claimed that “Yach , bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch,” and “spher bit
Grounds for recognition: there is no dispute.