The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant had no record of possessing or threatening child or juvenile pornography, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted that the above assertion of mistake was identical to the above assertion of mistake of fact, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the judgment of the lower court.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant could have had the record of punishment for the same crime of fraud, and attempted to flee during the criminal trial, and committed the instant fraud.

The crime of this case is committed online by deceiving a small amount of money from many unspecified victims over several times, and it is bad and bad to commit the crime.

Furthermore, the defendant requires the victim, who is a child vulnerable to the crime, to photograph obscene pictures, possess them after being transmitted, and take them to spread them to the victim's school, and so this part of the crime is very poor.

The defendant denies the possession of child or juvenile pornography and intimidation, and does not entirely reflect it.

However, the defendant recognized the fraud crime, and the court below paid a considerable amount of the damage amount and agreed with a considerable number of victims.

Except for the previous convictions in the original judgment, there is no criminal offense exceeding the fine.

Since the crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the previous judgment of the court below at the same time.