The conviction part of the first judgment and the second judgment shall be reversed in entirety.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

1. The first instance court’s dismissal of the prosecution against intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor’s dismissal of the public prosecution as to this case’s appeal did not appeal, which was separate and finalized with the attempts of the appeal period.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court of appeal is limited to the conviction part of the above judgment of the court of first instance and that of the second judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (the first judgment), the Defendant’s text did not feel fear or apprehension, but did not actually feel fear or apprehension.

In relation to the attack, there is no fact that the defendant demanded the victim K to pay the drinking value, or caused it to be hot.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first judgment of the court below: the fine of two million won, and the second judgment of the court below: the fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination

A. Article 74(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) provides that “The crime under Article 74(1)3 shall not be prosecuted against the victim’s will specifically manifested.” Thus, the crime of violating Article 44-7(1)3 of the Information and Communications Network Act constitutes the crime of non-prosecution.

On the other hand, a declaration of wishing not to withdraw or punish an expression of wishing to punish in a crime of non-violation of will may be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Since the absence of an expression of wishing not to punish is a passive litigation condition, the absence of an expression of intent not to punish is subject to ex officio investigation and determination, even if the parties

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do10678, Dec. 13, 2019). Of the instant facts charged, the victim N among the instant facts charged.