2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, who is a child or juvenile with insufficient judgment capacity, caused the Defendant to transmit pictures taken of sexual organs, etc. by threatening that he/she stolen his/her mobile phone and spreads his/her photograph stored therein, etc., and caused the Defendant to do an unobligatory act by threatening that he/she spreads the transmitted pictures as above. The nature of the crime is inferior and the possibility of criticism is high.

In addition, due to the above crimes, victims who were aged were suffering from considerable mental impulse and pain.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the following are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of all of the instant crimes; (b) there was no record of criminal punishment other than the protective disposition imposed on the juvenile due to the theft crime on January 2010; (c) the lower court agreed to pay KRW 10 million to the victim; and (d) the mother of the victim wanted to take the Defendant against the Defendant, which are favorable to the Defendant.

Considering the above grounds for sentencing and other circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, etc., and the recommended type of punishment (one year to 15 years of imprisonment) determined by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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

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