A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

No one shall repeatedly send any codes, text, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network to any other person.

The Defendant, from around 2015 to early 2017, continued to engage in a work-related relationship with the victim D, who was working as a volunteer, and the Defendant left his company around May 2017. After the Defendant’s retirement, the Defendant was unable to communicate with the victim, and the Defendant was imprisoning the victim by sending the victim’s her husband as if he had known her husband of the fact that her husband had no contact with the victim.

On July 20, 2017, around 17:12, the Defendant sent text messages to the victim on a total of 73 occasions from June 29, 2017 to June 18:53, 2017 to September 1, 2017, as indicated in the list of offenses, as indicated in the E- and G mobile phone 2, as he/she uses.

Accordingly, the defendant reached repeatedly the language that arouses fears or apprehensions to the above victim through information and communications network.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes by cutting down a text message;

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 44-7 (1) 3 of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense (generally, choice of imprisonment with prison labor), and Article 74-7 (1) 3 of the same Act;

1. The fact that the crime of this case is extremely poor in light of the period, frequency, contents of text messages, etc. of the Defendant’s sending of text messages for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected his mistake, and it is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment until now, and it is not approaching the victim again.