All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, Defendant 1’s photograph to the closure of the instant sexual relation, such as the video images (hereinafter “each of the instant pictures”).

The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”), which was taken with the consent of the victim at least 13 years of age, shall be deemed to have been adopted.

No “child or juvenile pornography” as prescribed by the Act is not a “child or juvenile pornography.” As to the distribution of each of the above pictures, Article 11(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”).

Article 14(2) shall be subject to the application of Article 14(2). 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete sexual assault treatment programs, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, each of the pictures of this case is a juvenile victim, and the victim was exposed to sexual intercourse or the chest was exposed. Each of the pictures of this case constitutes “child and juvenile pornography” as provided by Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Juvenile Protection Act, and each of the pictures of this case cannot be deemed excluded from “child and juvenile pornography” on the ground that the victim consented as alleged by the Defendant. (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10861 Decided January 29, 2015, cited by the Defendant’s defense counsel, is a matter concerning “production of child and juvenile pornography” and is different from “distribution of child and juvenile pornography”, which is the facts charged of the instant case, so it is inappropriate to directly invoke the instant case.

2) Therefore, the Defendant’s transmission of each of the instant pictures constitutes the distribution of child and juvenile pornography under Article 11(3) of the Juvenile Protection Act, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(b) prosecutors and defendants;