2. Each of the crimes of this case, each of the crimes of this case, is required to punish the Defendant with severe punishment in light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant satisfys obscenity using a debate program; (b) posted it on the Internet bulletin board; and (c) possession of child and juvenile pornography and the social harm caused thereby.

However, the Defendant’s primary crime with no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant’s production of obscene video display through the information and communications network among each of the crimes in this case did not intend to violate the commercial purpose or the privacy of a specific person. The possession of child or juvenile pornography does not mean that the Defendant received general obscene materials from the Internet as a result of the Defendant’s downloading them on the Internet, and the Defendant’s use of them was a child or juvenile pornography, and the nature of the crime was not excessive; the Defendant’s mistake was divided; the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation and family environment, the background and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime. In full view of the various sentencing factors indicated in the instant case, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is excessively unfasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, following the amendment of the Act, “Article 33(1) and Article 34 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse” in the column for registering personal information shall be “Article 11047 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse” (Article 11047, and Article 3 of the former Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. < Amended by Act No. 110