2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime in the holding is a provision of illegally recorded sexually related motion pictures to a non-party, and the crime is not good in light of the content of the motion pictures or the body parts of the victims, and there is a high possibility of criticism in that the Defendant’s motion pictures are intended to view a large number of sexually related motion pictures with the intent of providing motion pictures.

In addition, as a result of the crime, the video was widely disseminated by the crime, resulting in the victim's impossibility of recovery.

Considering the major circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, the sentence of the court of first instance seems to be unfilled.

The circumstances favorable to the defendant asserted by the defense counsel are deemed to have been sufficiently taken into account for the reasons for sentencing of the judgment of the first instance, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment of the first instance because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, even if various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, etc., as well as the circumstances after the offense, have been considered, it cannot be determined that the sentencing of the court of the first instance exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion by excessively leaving the sentencing of the court.

3. The appeal by the defendant 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.