The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (limited to three years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, and Confiscation) against the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence in the part of the Defendant case is so unfased so that it is unreasonable to exempt the Defendant from the disclosure notification order. 2) It is unreasonable to dismiss the lower court’s request for attachment order against the Defendant with the risk of recidivism.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. We also examine the defendant's and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing.

The Defendant’s crime of this case committed not only committed an indecent act against the victims of the ageed sexual self-determination right but also took the process by photographing them with pictures or videos, but also committed a risk that unspecified or many users may distort sexual consciousness by posting obscene materials used by children or juveniles in the camera bulletin board at the portal site. Considering the fact that the crime of this case is highly serious, and the victims from the instant crime may have a significant obstacle to the development of sound sexual consciousness in the future, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with strict liability.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and seriously against the defendant, that the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal punishment power, that his family, relatives, and relatives are suffering from the treatment of the defendant while seeking the defendant's wife, that the circumstance that the defendant experienced the divorce of his parents and was exposed for a long time in an unsound family environment where he had experienced the divorce of his parents, seems to have influenced the crime of this case, and that the defendant is voluntarily liable for the crime of this case due to his dynamic sexual orientation.