The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the complainant of the facts charged of this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant repeatedly sent to the complainant E a statement that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network to the complainant E and reached the complainant.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant sent each text message to the complainant on March 26, 2015; (b) on January 24, 2017, which is one year and ten months after the date on March 27, 2015, and one year and ten months after the date on March 27, 2015, respectively; and (c) on February 25, 2017, each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record; (d) the Defendant sent each text message to the complainant on February 25, 2017; (e) the interval between each of the acts is considerable; and (e) the said text message is not unilaterally sent by the Defendant to the victim, but is sent in the process of sending each text message arising from disputes arising in connection with the lease agreement between the

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that each of the above text messages sent by the Defendant included indecent and excessive expressions that may cause fear or apprehensions.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, the defendant committed a series of repeated acts that may cause fear or apprehensions of the other party through the information and communications network.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. On February 11, 2015, the Defendant leased 401 of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City H Ground Building to the complainant on or around March 2015. On or around March 26, 2015, the Defendant disputed with the complainant due to the issue of replacement of laundry period, etc., which was already installed on or around March 26, 2015, sent letters as indicated in the facts charged four times from around March 20 to March 27, 2015, and the Defendant sent the same letters as indicated in the facts charged. The Defendant around January 2017.