The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 2018 Highest 422, 2019 Highest 7: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and 2019 Highest 20,000 won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are favorable circumstances for the Defendant: (a) the recognition of the Defendant’s criminal act; (b) the number of obscene materials posted is not large; (c) the profits acquired by the Defendant are low due to each of the instant crimes; and (d) the crime of the instant case 2019Dadan20 was committed before the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive.

Meanwhile, even though there are many criminal records of the same kind, each of the crimes of this case was repeatedly committed, the crime of this case was committed during the period of probation, which is highly likely to repeat the crime in light of the motive of the crime and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant's awareness of compliance seems to be weak, and the crime of dissemination of obscene materials using information and communications network requires severe social harm and severe punishment against the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances, including the motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too remote and so it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.