The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

[Judgment on the grounds of appeal] The summary of the grounds of appeal in this case is a intimidation among the facts charged in this case, and each violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. is a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, and the victim

(Legal Predictions). The sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

(B) Article 70(3) of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Act”), and Article 74(1)3 of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Act”) cannot be prosecuted against the intent specifically expressed by the victim under Articles 70(3) and 74(2) of the same Act.

According to the records, since the victim C expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant through a written agreement submitted to the court below on April 23, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case, the victim C after the prosecution of this case, it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the above facts charged, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so this part of the defendant's assertion is with merit.

If so, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment by treating each crime for which public prosecution should be dismissed as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the remaining crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety. Thus, the judgment on the defendant'