All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Illegal sentencing of Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (a three-year imprisonment, a disclosure notification order between five-years, and a sexual assault treatment program 80-hour order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and repented his mistake.

It is an initial crime with no record of criminal punishment.

However, the crime of this case refers to the defendant's access to the victims who are children through mobile games to offer game items.

After doing so, it is very hot that the victims would have taken and transmitted the image, etc. of the game items in return for the use of the act of self-defense, etc. to induce some victims for the purpose of sexual intercourse, but the attempted crime is related to the attempted crime, in light of the background of the crime, the method and manner of the crime, the degree of damage, etc.

The crime of this case seems to have suffered a great sexual humiliation and mental suffering due to the severe sexual humiliation and mental suffering, and even after it, it seems that there is a significant obstacle to the formation of a sound sexual identity.

According to the results of the investigation into the sentencing, only the victimJ does not want the punishment of the defendant among the victims whose real name has been verified, and the defendant did not receive any suspicion from the rest of the victims.

In addition to such circumstances, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, health conditions, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; (c) compared with the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing; and (d) where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.).