obscenity)

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The writing sent by the defendant to the victim cannot be deemed to cause sexual humiliation or aversion, and the defendant did not have any purpose to arouse or satisfy his or her sexual desire.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement in its judgment. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that rejected the Defendant’s assertion and that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is justifiable. Accordingly, the Defendant’

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable to the Defendant. In full view of all the circumstances that serve as the condition for sentencing in this court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, even if the sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, etc., are comprehensively taken into account, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

C. Ex officio determination on an employment restriction order under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act

In the instant case, the determination of whether to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for disabled persons pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act should be made. It is determined that there are special circumstances where the lower court may not issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for disabled persons for the same reason as the lower court revealed while exempting the employment restriction order for children and juveniles. Accordingly, the Defendant is exempted from

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-in

Judges Lee Jin-jin