The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the order to attend a sexual assault treatment lecture 40 hours, the community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 fact that the Defendant repents and reflects the mistake, that the Defendant is the primary offender, and that the photographing itself was made with the consent of the victim.

However, the crime of this case seems to have caused considerable sexual humiliation and mental suffering, and the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim, and the use of another person's mobile phone with the risk of secondary damage in the process of transmitting the video of this case to the victim is disadvantageous.

In that sense, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted at the appellate court, and the lower court determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances.

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the community service order imposed by the lower court is excessive for a long time and is unfair, the lower court imposes the community service order to give an opportunity to diveize and improve the community by taking into account the fact that the Defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, and lower the fear of recidivism.

Considering the fact that community service order has the nature of security disposition, not punishment, and the possibility of flexible execution in the execution stage considering the condition and health condition of the subject, etc., it is deemed appropriate that the court below ordered community service for 120 hours within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment.