The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, around September 2012, 201, she was aware of the Victim B, but came to be hedging with the victim on or around October 31 of the same year, after having a good appraisal with the victim.

피고인은 2013. 7. 15.경 피해자에게 다시 만나자는 취지의 문자메시지를 전송하였으나, 피해자가 그에 대하여 어떠한 연락을 하지 않았음에도, 2013. 7. 29. 20:44경 서울 노원구 C에 있는 피고인의 주거지에서, 피고인의 휴대전화를 이용하여 피해자의 휴대전화로 “B아~ 난 내 삶에 만족해.. 하지만 너가 내 옆에 있으면 나는 더 행복할 것 같아! 내가 너를 오래오래 행복하게 할 수 있으면 난 너무 기쁠거야! 신중하게 생각해 봐죠~ 나를 다시 받아줄 순 없는지 ”라는 내용의 문자메시지를 전송하였다.

The defendant, including this, from around that time, is the same year.

8. From 22:10 until 13.22:10, by transmitting letters over a total of 125 times as indicated in the annexed list of crimes, the text that arouses fear or apprehensions through information and communications networks has repeatedly arrived at the victim.

2. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., punish a person who repeatedly sends codes, words, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network

In this context, whether the phrase “inciting fear and apprehensions repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “an act of repeatedly reaching another person” ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents and method of expression that the Defendant sent to the other party and the sound meaning, relationship between the Defendant and the other party, developments leading up to and frequency of sending the words, circumstances before and after sending them, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7761 Decided December 12, 2013). However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defendant are submitted.