The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant caused fears or apprehensions to the victim as shown in the facts charged is recognized. However, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant charges is a crime preventionCCTV installer, and is in a sane relationship with the victim.

No one shall allow anyone to repeatedly reach another person with words, etc. creating fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Nevertheless, at around 21:03:48 on May 31, 201, the Defendant sent a phone to the victim who was breaked at the head of Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Dagwon 2, 301, and 2:301, and then sent a phone to the victim about how much he or she gets to collapse, and how much he or she would be age. This spacks, including that he or she expressed an desire to us. . . 1. June 1, 2011, the Defendant sent a phone call, 14 times a telephone call, and 3 times a text message, as shown in [Attachment List] of the lower judgment.

B. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. impose punishment on “a person who repeatedly sends words, etc. that arouse fear or apprehension through an information and communications network to the other party.” Whether the words, etc. causing fear or apprehension reached the other party repeatedly should not be determined based on simply on the content of the sent text messages, but rather on the basis of the circumstances leading up to sending such text messages, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the situation of the victim before and after sending the text messages.

The court below is legitimate.