The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant sent pictures and text messages as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below to the victim. However, the defendant sent pictures to the victim for the purpose of confirming the video products produced by the victim. The text messages merely sent pictures to the victim with no obvious explanation of the victim, and do not send them for the purpose of inducing or meeting the sexual desire of the defendant or the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the crime of obscenity using a communications medium requires “for the purpose of inducing or meeting his/her own or another person’s sexual desire.” The determination should be made reasonably in light of ordinary social norms by taking into account various circumstances, including the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the motive and circumstance leading up to the act, the details and method of the act, the details

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s reason for sending the instant pictures and text messages to the victim was included in the victim’s sexual desire as well as the expression of the victim’s sexual humiliation.

Therefore, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The Defendant continued to contact the victim for a long time with the victim on or around December 2013, and continued to contact the victim thereafter, but the victim avoided contact. However, the Defendant was the cell phone of the victim four times from September 12, 2014 to September 15, 2014.