The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) does not mean that the Defendant sent the victim text messages as stated in the facts charged, and even if the Defendant sent text messages such as the written facts charged, punishing the victim for the exchange of text messages between individuals would infringe on the freedom of expression.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the grounds for appeal, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant sent text messages, such as the victim's cellular phone recorded in the facts charged, using the cell phone.

In addition, Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. punishs persons who repeatedly sent words that arouse fears or apprehensions to other parties through information and communications networks. As such, repeatedly sending words causing fears or apprehensions to other parties via information and communications networks is an issue of infringement on other persons’ rights, and does not constitute an area of protection of freedom of expression. Thus, restriction on or infringement of freedom of expression cannot be deemed as a provision of restriction on freedom of expression. Furthermore, from November 201 to October 4, 2011, the Defendant sent repeated text messages to the victim from October 8, 201 to when there is a dispute between the Defendant and the victim on the existence of claims, including text messages that seem to cause harm to the victim or his/her children. Considering the circumstances leading up to sending text messages to the victim, the Defendant’s relationship between the victim and the victim, and the situation before and after the Defendant’s repeated sending them to the victim.