The judgment below

The guilty portion against the defendant shall be reversed.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant used the other party’s mobile phone at any time while sharing the mobile phone locking device with the victim. As such, the Defendant was given the general consent of the victim on accessing the information and communications network by accessing the victim’s mobile phone to the information and communications network.

B) The Defendant, among the Kakao Stockholm messages on the victim’s mobile phone, was asked by the injured party to find out the date on which the injured party promised to view the Kakakao Stockholm messages with her natives, and was allowed to peruse the victim’s Kakao Stockholm messages, which were written in the facts charged. As such, the Defendant accessed the victim’s information and communications network with the victim’s specific consent.

2) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (A) insofar as a victim’s general or specific consent was connected to an information and communications network with the victim’s mobile phone with the victim’s mobile phone, it does not constitute a confidential infringement as prescribed by the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) even if the victim’s non-

B) The Kakao Stockholm message stated in the facts charged does not constitute a secret protected under the Information and Communications Network Act, because it is merely a miscellaneous wall divided by the injured party’s friendly group.

C) The Defendant’s offering Kakao Stockholm messages as indicated in the facts charged to a divorce litigation agent and submitting them with evidentiary documents does not constitute an act of notifying others with no knowledge of secrets, and does not go against the social norms.

B. Prosecutor 1) The victim of the misunderstanding of the facts (the part not guilty against the Defendant) consistently stated the fact of damage caused by the Defendant’s assault, and consistent with the medical records, etc., which led to the high credibility of the statement, the lower court’s judgment was erroneous.

2) Sentencing is unfair.