The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Attached Form of the judgment of the court below in violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection

1. Of text messages written in the crime sight table, text messages Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 are merely expressions that urge repayment of debts, or express the Defendant’s own appraisal and the victim’s original network, etc. somewhat excessive, and thus do not constitute a content that arouses fear or apprehension.

In addition, when excluding text messages Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 above, it cannot be deemed that the text messages have reached repeatedly the text that arouses fear or apprehension.

2) There is no possibility that the Defendant forced the victim to take a serious desire or intimidation. The credibility of the victim’s statement is insufficient, and this part of the facts charged cannot be viewed as evidence of this part of the charges. B. The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, attached to the judgment of the court below

1. Of the text messages as indicated in the crime sight table, the number 6, 8, and 10 Nos. 6, 8, and 10 appears to be the content of demanding debt reimbursement. However, considering the contents of a series of text messages from No. 1 to No. 14, it is deemed that: (a) continued to allow debt reimbursement; and (b) continued to extend to the victim who seeks to escape from the Defendant, and (c) continued to reach the victim with the language that arouses fear or apprehension.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant caused the Defendant to perform an act of non-performance of obligations by threatening the victim, is justifiable, and it is so argued by the Defendant.