Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. On October 12, 2013, the Defendant is obvious that the Defendant is a clerical error in the indictment “Abs. 22:01 on October 12, 201,” written in the indictment around 22:01,” and “Abs. 22:01 on October 12, 2013.”

The victim C’s cell phone using the Defendant’s telephone at a place where it is unknown to the victim C, and the victim’s cell phone used the Defendant’s phone, sent a text message called “Isn't have to be able to make it clear that Isn't have to go against the conclusion of the judgment,” and eventually sent a text message called “Isn't have been cut off in a year different from that of the judgment.” From the above date to February 10:14, 2014, the text message leading up to fear or apprehensions over 123 times, such as the written list of crimes, reached the victim repeatedly.

2. Where a person continues to conduct several acts falling under the name of the same crime or continuous acts falling under the name of the same crime for a certain period under a single and continuous criminal intent and the legal benefits from such damage are the same, all these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3172 Decided September 8, 2006). According to the records, the Defendant, at the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 20, 2014, sentenced a fine of KRW 3 million to a crime of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., and became final and conclusive on April 9, 2015.

The facts charged in the instant case are as follows: (a) from October 12, 2013 to February 15, 2014; and (b) the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., of Victims C during the said final judgment, committed the Defendant’s repeated arrival of the text causing fears or apprehensions using a mobile phone, with different periods from June 29, 2013 to September 17, 2013.

Among the facts charged in the instant case and the final judgment, there is time interval between the criminal facts violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, with respect to the victim C, and there is considerable interval between the crimes indicated in the instant charges.