A. (1) The Defendants (1) misjudgmentation of facts (Defendant B) did not think of being a minor, and only expressed a dissenting opinion in the process of employing the victim, and did not assist the Defendant in the act of screening child and juvenile pornography for profit-making purposes.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 5 months of imprisonment; 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program; 1 year of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of order to attend a sexual assault treatment program) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant aided and abetted the Defendant’s act of screening child and juvenile pornography for profit-making purposes is justifiable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① The instant broadcast was screened and screened in No. 402, Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Gwangju, the Defendant’s residence.

② At the investigative agency, A and C stated to the effect that the Defendant was aware that the victim was a minor and the Defendant was aware of the recording and screening of the instant broadcasts.

③ The victim made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant, who entered school uniforms, stated that the Defendant would not appear to have the appearance as “the moto moto moto moto moto” and the appearance as “the moto moto moto moto moto moto, but

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendants may have a minor victim proceed with a broadcast beyond the crypary title, thereby adversely affecting the formation of the victim’s sexual values, and further, adversely affecting the settlement of the sound sexual culture in our society.