2. The lower court determined the Defendant by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the nature of the instant crime committed by the Defendant to resolve his distorted sexual desire by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim, who is a female son, is not very good, and has a high possibility of criticism; (b) the victim seems to have suffered mental suffering difficult to be easily cured, such as inducing serious anxiety; (c) the victim’s desire to punish the Defendant; (d) the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is recognized and contradictory; (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of his exchange with others on the Internet; (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of his exchange with others on the Internet; (e) there is no circumstance to suspect that the Defendant actually leaked the pictures transmitted by the victim; and (e) the victim’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions indicated in the trial have been considered.

In full view of the elements of the sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing determination is too inappropriate because it goes beyond the reasonable limit of the discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing condition, such as that the Defendant is still not able to receive a letter from the victim, etc.

The crime of this case is committed by the Defendant using SNS (social relation network service) by demanding the victim who was only in the online to ice and secure the physical photo of the victim, and then threatening the victim to spread the victim's photograph online, using the victim's photograph as one's own "Ethical", and causing the victim, who is the next young student, to be "A(Defendant) No." and sexually sexual act.