The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below dismissed the prosecution as to the violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged, and dismissed the public prosecution which the prosecutor did not appeal because only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion becomes final and conclusive depending on the expiration of the appeal period. Thus, the court below’s judgment should be tried only on the guilty portion among the judgment below.

2. The sentence imposed by the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (a prison term of eight months, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 457,00) is too unreasonable.

3. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under the foregoing Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the following grounds: Provided, That in the judgment of the court below, the phrase “Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that the phrase “Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act” and the phrase “Article 374(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that the phrase “Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that the phrase “Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act” as the phrase “Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that it is obvious that the phrase “Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is erroneous.”