The conviction part of the judgment of the court below and the case of request for attachment order and probation order.

The court below, within the scope of the judgment, dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation), among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted all of the charges against the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (production, Distribution, etc. of obscenity), the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Indecent Act), and the violation of the Child Welfare Act

In regard to this, the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested, the person to whom the probation order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), and the prosecutor filed an appeal only for the convicted part, and the rejection part of each of the above public prosecution which was not appealed from the judgment below is separated and confirmed as it is. As such, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the convicted part

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The police interrogation protocol of April 14, 2020, which was prepared without guaranteeing the right to assistance of counsel, is inadmissible.

In addition, since the defense counsel of the court below forced the defendant to make a confession on the grounds of sentencing, the confession made by the defendant does not have the effect.

In light of the following facts, the court below erred by mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The victim stated that the victim sent M to “M” the chest, sexual flag, panpanty photographic image, etc. (hereinafter “the instant photograph, etc.”) through D (hereinafter “D”) upon the direction of the person using the AB “AB” for dumping, and that the victim sent dump pictures, etc. (hereinafter “the instant photograph, etc.”) to “M, etc., and then, as seen thereafter, he did not have all the contents of the photograph posted, but some of the pictures were omitted in the part where the contents of the specific photograph are not at issue.” However, the victim’s access records, rooms, etc. were recorded as above.