The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the defendant's grounds of appeal (e.g., the defendant's mistake, the defendant committed the instant crime by drinking alcohol and contingently, the victim expressed his/her intention not to be punished, the sexually related video itself taken with the victim's consent, the defendant posted the video at the Kakakao Kakao Office in a high school-friendly group hosting room and did not aim to spread it to many and unspecified persons, and there was no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the court below's sentence that sentenced the order to provide community service for 8 months in suspension of execution, 2 years in suspension of execution, and 80 hours in prison and the order to attend a sexual assault treatment course for 40 hours in an excessive amount is unfair.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the defendant on the Kakao Kaka Stockholm, which had 17 sexual intercourses with the victim against his will, and the crime of this case is not considerably good, and the victim is likely to have suffered considerable mental impulse and pain, and the defendant has several records of being punished by the fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures). In light of the motive and background of the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's character and behavior and environment, the punishment of the court below is not determined to be unfair even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no ground for appeal for conclusion. It is so decided as per Disposition

However, the court below's "the application of the law" is clearly erroneous entry of "1. The confiscation". Thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.