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 in the month of imprisonment with prison labor, forty hours of taking sexual assault treatment lectures, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the offense; (b) the Defendant deposited KRW 1 million for the victim; (c) the victim’s photograph was not disseminated; (d) the primary offender is a favorable sentencing ground; (b) the Defendant sent pictures by threatening the victim 19 times over 2 weeks; and (c) the Defendant sent the message that causes sexual humiliation over 113 times; and (d) the Defendant sent the message that did not agree with the victim.

In full view of the above sentencing factors, in full view of the Defendant’s age, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading to the commission of the crime, and all other matters on the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the judgment of the court below is deemed appropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with 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 Constitutional Court Decision 2015Hun-Ma688 Decided March 31, 2016) as to the part “ unconstitutionality” (see Constitutional Court Decision 2015Hun-Ma688, supra). As such, the offense of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media) does not constitute a sex offense subject to the registration of personal information, and thus, the judgment of the court below is corrected to delete ex officio No. 4, 12-20 of the judgment below pursuant to Article 25(1)