The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 2,00,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unhued that the penalty (2,00,000 won of fine) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unhued.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the lower court ex officio examined the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, and the lower court committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting the attached Form despite the fact of the Defendant’s criminal facts, thereby failing to specify the facts of the offense. In this regard, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court is identical to the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below except for addition of the attached Form, which are omitted in the judgment of the court below, as shown in the attached Form No. 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines for negligence;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment include the fact that the defendant recognized the facts of the crime, the fact that the defendant committed the crime with the victim who was in a relationship with the victim, and the fact that there is no criminal record against the defendant before the crime of this case, and the crime of this case is committed repeatedly by sending the victim text messages containing abusive and intimidation 59 times per month, and there is no effort to recover the damage after the crime.