The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, Distribution, etc. of obscenity) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and ordered the confiscation under subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence, and there are special circumstances that may not disclose personal information of the Defendant.

It is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the disclosure and notification of the Defendant’s personal information for a period of three years. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding the grounds for excluding illegality in the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (distribution of obscenity, etc.), confiscation, and disclosure order.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.