The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) The message content of No. 1 of the instant facts charged is merely a simple statement of dissatisfaction, not a content that arouses fear or apprehension to the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the Defendant as violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion.

2) The text messages and photographs of the instant charges No. 2 are merely sent by the Defendant in the course of a dispute with a port and do not aim to satisfy his or her sexual desire.

Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the Defendant as committing a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media). In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment of 10 months and the completion of 40 hours of sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is justifiable. Article 74(1)3 and Article 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. are punished for repeated arrival of words, text, sound, image, or motion picture that arouses fear or apprehension through an information and communications network.

Here, whether “the act of repeatedly reaching another person” constitutes “the act of repeatedly causing fear or apprehension” ought to be determined by the lower court by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text sent by the Defendant to the other party and the method of expression, the implications of the expression, the relationship between the Defendant and the other party, the developments leading up to sending the text, the frequency of sending the text and the circumstances before and after, and the situation faced by the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do761, Dec. 12, 2013).