The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment and forty hours of an order to attend a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and seriously reflects his mistake, that the defendant was the first offender who did not have any criminal history, that the victim seems not to have the intent to punish the defendant, etc. However, the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation due to the crime of this case as a juvenile under the age of 16. On the other hand, the transmission of images causing sexual humiliation or aversion over two times, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case such as the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore the above argument by the defendant is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the Constitutional Court (Article 42(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 11556, Dec. 18, 2012).

“The Supreme Court Decision 2015Hun-Ma688 Decided March 31, 2016) rendered a decision that the part is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2015Hun-Ma688 Decided March 31, 2016). According to the above unconstitutional decision, even if a crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media) is finalized, the defendant is not a person subject to registration of personal information, and thus, the defendant is not a person subject to registration of personal information, and thus, is corrected to ex officio delete the two-party