Defendant

The punishment of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, and forty hours of the sexual assault treatment course) is too unreasonable.

In spite of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media) even though the Defendant sent pictures that may cause a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to C and G through a cellular phone “to arouse or satisfy his own or another person’s sexual desire.”

The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of sexual assault treatment) of the lower court is too uneasy and unfair.

On March 21, 2013, the summary of the facts charged concerning the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using a communication medium) due to the Defendant’s transmission of pictures to C and G by the Defendant on March 21, 2013, the Defendant sent pictures of F’s father C on March 21, 2013 using a mobile phone to F’s father C and F’s children, each of whom, around 00:55, in order to arouse or satisfy the Defendant’s sexual desire, sent pictures that may cause sexual humiliation or aversion through a mobile phone to C and G, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the Defendant’s sexual desire.

The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not have “the purpose of inducing or satisfied his/her sexual desire”.

Article 13 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 1556, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be construed as "tele, mail, computer and any other person with a view to inducing or satisfying his/her own or another person's sexual desire."