The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is not only the content that arouses fears and apprehensions that the defendant sent to the victim, but also it is made repeatedly.

2. Determination

A. Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. punish “a person who repeatedly makes another person reach another person with the language that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.”

In addition, in order to determine that the act of creating a series of uneasiness by using the above information and communications network constitutes such act in light of the legislative intent, the crime is a case where each act is closely related with one another, such as the temporary and temporary distance of the place, similarity of methods, the same opportunity, and the continuation of criminal intent, and thus, it can be evaluated as a series of repeated acts.

Therefore, in a case where a single or non-competing act, which cannot be assessed as such, is only a passive act, it cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the above Act even if the punishment for a separate crime, such as intimidation or an act of creating uneasiness under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, is separate according to the specific contents and degree of the language.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11595 Decided April 23, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, whether “the text and text, etc. causing fears and fears have reached the other party repeatedly” under Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. does not simply determine the basis of the content of the dispatched text and text and text, but rather, the circumstance leading up to sending such text and text, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the Defendant.