2. The lower court determined that: (a) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant was fully aware of the instant crime; (b) the first offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant criminal punishment; and (c) it was not confirmed whether the victim-related images have been distributed; (b) under unfavorable circumstances, the Defendant committed an indecent act by force by means of threatening the victim to commit an obscene act; and (c) produced obscene materials by video recording the pages; and (d) furthermore, the Defendant distributed the above images.

Considering that there is a high possibility of social criticism in light of the fact that the injured party attacks property, etc., the victim who is a child or juvenile whose sexual identity and values are not established yet is the object of his/her sexual desire, and the crime is very serious in light of the object of crime and the method of crime, etc., and child or juvenile pornography is a child or juvenile who directly damages the child or juvenile, and the child or juvenile pornography is aware of the mental suffering that it is difficult to recover, and promotes a distorted perception and abnormal sense of value toward sex to the audience. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish them to fundamentally prevent “production of obscene materials” using children or juveniles. In particular, if obscene materials are produced through the development of information and communications media such as the Internet, etc., it is possible for the producer to provide them for distribution at any time and without discrimination regardless of the intention of the producer after production.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been determined by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is a special reason to assess the sentencing conditions of the lower court until the trial is held.