The judgment below

Each part of the guilty and not guilty part shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant (i.e., mistake of facts and intimidation of legal principles), the lower court deemed that the Defendant sent the victim F a victim’s message via several times, but in light of the time interval and the content of the message, it is merely an act of “one time”.

In addition, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since the defendant sent a message to that effect without the victim's intent to bring his sexual intercourse with the victim on the Internet for the purpose of defending the defect that the victim would put his photograph on the Internet.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one-month imprisonment, etc.) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. In the case of prosecutor’s (i.e., fraud), when a female sexual act is committed on the premise of receiving money and other valuables, the consideration for such act constitutes an economic interest, which is the subject of fraud, but the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the victims of each charge on this part of the charges, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The victim F did not implicitly allow the defendant's transmission of his/her photograph in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media).

In addition, the above victim implicitly allowed the defendant's transmission of photograph.

Even if there is no phrase "the elements of the above crime against the will of the other party", such circumstance does not interfere with the establishment of the crime.

Nevertheless, the court below explicitly consented to the defendant's above act.