The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have prepared a written evidence verifying the content of the instant case, and only the name of the parents of the instant school was prepared and sent to the Defendant, and did not directly perform the act of sending.

In addition, the defendant did not know the fact that there was the content stated in the facts charged among the content certification of this case and did not agree to dispatch the content certification, and thus did not have the intention of intimidation, and provided the victims with an opportunity to explain.

B. The facts charged in the instant case’s content certification do not constitute a threat of harm and injury.

(2) The act of sending the certificate of content of the instant case constitutes a legitimate act.

C. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “the foregoing E-School Library uses a computer network protocol around April 5, 2013,” which read “on April 5, 2013, the E-School Library changed from the above E-School to “by going through the staff and parents conference,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this Court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, because the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is aware of the fact that the same purport as the facts charged was stated in the instant content certification.