A. The text sent by the Defendant cannot be deemed to cause sexual humiliation or aversion, and the Defendant did not have any purpose to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of himself or the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement of the judgment.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant as above.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as the condition for sentencing in this Court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

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. In this case, determination of ex officio on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall be made in accordance with Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. The lower court against the Defendant’s child