The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine (1) In other words, the Defendant’s letter sent on October 11, 2014 does not constitute a case where the Defendant’s fear or apprehensions are neglected to make a simple appearance.

(2) On October 29, 2014, the text message sent to 22:34, 22:38, 22:41, and 22:43 was substantially repeated as a single message to the same effect that was sent in the vicinity of the text message.

It can not be seen, and it is sent with the intention to sacrificing rather than inducing fear and apprehensions.

In addition, the remaining text messages sent on the same day are merely a simple bath theory related to the above message. (3) It is merely merely a notification that the Defendant’s legitimate exercise of the right to request disciplinary action on November 20, 2014, and the remaining text messages sent on the same day are merely a simple bath theory. (b) The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (1.2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. of Information and Communications Network Act punish the act of repeatedly reaching other parties any codes, language, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Here, whether the phrase “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly causing fear or apprehension” ought to be determined by comprehensively considering the contents of the language and 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 words, the frequency of sending the words, the circumstances before and after, and the other party’s situation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do4351, Aug. 21, 2008; 2013Do7761, Dec. 12, 2013). (B) The following evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court is as follows.