All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period.

B. With respect to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using a communication medium) on March 27, 2017 of the lower judgment by the prosecutor (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts despite the Defendant’s right to sexual self-determination as it gives the victim a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion from a general and objective point of view.

In addition, the punishment (including a fine of 5 million won, completion of a sexual assault treatment program) declared by the court below is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case regarding the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant did not submit the appellate brief within the lawful period for submission of the appellate brief despite receiving the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial record from the court on June 21, 2018 after filing an appeal against the lower court on July 12, 2018; and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for ex officio examination on the records.

Therefore, it is necessary to decide to dismiss the defendant's appeal in accordance with Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on the prosecutor's appeal, it is necessary to decide not to separately dismiss the appeal and also to decide

B. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s appeal concerning the prosecutor’s appeal is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s photograph transmitted on March 27, 2017 to the victim or the general public feel a sense of shame or insult as a human being, even though considering the health room, the circumstance alleged by the prosecutor as to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the background leading up to the Defendant’s transmission of photographs on March 27, 2017, as the lower court explained in detail. The Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is rejected. 2) The Prosecutor