The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of two years, 40 hours to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 10 years to place employment restriction order) 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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant acknowledges and reflects his/her mistake, and that the Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime is favorable to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, given that the use of child and juvenile pornography is likely to undermine the health growth of children and to spread distorted perceptions and values about sex, the crime is very bad, that there is a history of punishment for suspended execution of imprisonment with prison labor for this type of crime, the frequency of crimes is very large, and that the use of child and juvenile pornography has gained economic benefits through the sale of child pornography, etc., which are disadvantageous to 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, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.