All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the facts charged that Defendant (1) sold obscenity 20 times in total of 20 times in the judgment of the court below [the list 1], only six times (No. 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20) among them constitute a sale of child or juvenile pornography, and the rest of 14 times does not constitute a sale of child or juvenile pornography.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of a sexual assault treatment program, 1 through 13 additional collection, 18, 611, 500 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the credibility of a confession of the relevant legal doctrine should be made by taking into account all the circumstances, including whether the content of the confession statement itself is objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and what is not contrary to or contradictory to the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

Furthermore, in cases where the Defendant consistently led to the confession from the investigative agency to the date of trial, and reversed his/her own confession from a certain trial date, in addition to examining the credibility of the confession statement, the following should be examined: (a) together with the motive, reason and circumstance behind the reversal of the confession, in light of the progress of the statements made by the investigative agency and the contents of the statement; and (b) whether there is evidence supporting the reversal.

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869 Decided October 13, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the Defendant’s confession statement and reinforcement evidence.