The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of order to attend a lecture, and 3 years of restriction on employment) that the court below sentenced is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of the following: (a) the health team and the Defendant have been recognized the entire crime of this case as to the instant case when they came to the trial; (b) it does not appear to have changed to the extent that the lower court’s sentencing is changed; and (c) no new sentencing data have been submitted in the trial; and (d) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, Article 11(3) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (the distribution of obscene materials used by children and juveniles), Articles 74(1)2 and 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (the distribution of obscene materials) of the lower judgment’s application of Articles 4 and 5 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, and Article 74(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (the distribution of obscene materials used by children and juveniles) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse.